‘Shameful to position, dignity’: Quashing contempt conviction, Andhra Pradesh High Court flays senior govt officials for laxity

‘Officials should be more careful’

• The single judge recorded in his order that the contemnors, who are holding senior positions in government, should have complied with the order with promptitude and within the time stipulated for its compliance.
• During the pendency of the contempt case, the contemnors rejected the representation of the petitioner via an order dated April 19, 2023.
• There is a delay of four months in complying with the order.
• Though the order was complied with, it was not in its true letter and spirit.
• Being the senior officials of the government, they should be more careful in future in complying with the order of the court in its true letter and spirit.

Background

• The matter arose from a contempt plea of 2023, filed by the then Kurnool district collector P Koteswara Rao, and Nandyal revenue divisional officer A Srinivas.
• The plea challenged a July 14, 2023, order by a single judge that found the officials in “wilful and deliberate disobedience” of a court order dated October 18, 2022.
• The original dispute involved a plea filed by Kammara Upendrachari, a retired senior assistant, seeking the encashment of 300 days of earned leave and other pensionary benefits.
• The court had directed the officials to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representations within four weeks of receiving the order.

Delay, contempt proceedings

• Evidence presented to the court showed that the officials received the order on November 9, 2022, setting a compliance deadline of December 8, 2022.
• However, the representation was only formally rejected on April 19, 2023, more than four months after the stipulated deadline and only after the contempt case had been initiated.
• The single judge, expressing dissatisfaction with this delay, had convicted the officials and ordered them to pay a fine of Rs 100 each, with a default sentence of one week of simple imprisonment.

Arguments on plea

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate P Subash submitted that there is no wilful lapse on behalf of the petitioners to comply with the order.
• It is further contended that they have actually complied with the order passed by the single judge, but there is some unintentional delay.
• He further argued that the petitioners, as a competent authority acted promptly by directing to submit the necessary service regularisation order, to comply with the order of the court.
• He requested to consider the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioners and prayed to accept the apology by setting aside the order of punishment.