IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
FRIDAY THIS THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.473 of 2014
and WRIT PETITION No.6064 of 2014 CONTEMPT CASE No.473 of 2014 Between:
B.B.Reddy . PETITIONER And Sri Lakshmi Dharma . RESPONDENT/R2 WRIT PETITION No.6064 of 2014 Between:
B.B.Reddy . PETITIONERS And A.P.S.R.T.C. and another . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.473 of 2014 and WRIT PETITION No.6064 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
This Contempt Case No.473 of 2014 is filed under Sections 10-12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 04.03.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.7542 of 2014 in W.P.No.6064 of 2014.
This Writ Petition No.6064 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records from the second respondent and issue any other Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of suspension in Proc.No.P1/114(1)/2014/TDR dated 22.02.2014 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in both the cases.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to revoke the suspension order passed by the second respondent and to issue a direction to reinstate him into service. He also filed W.P.M.P.No.7542 of 2014 seeking interim relief to suspend the order passed against him by the second respondent/Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
Learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 04.03.2014 suspended the suspension order passed by the second respondent until further orders. In spite of passing of the said order, the petitioner was not admitted to duty and thereupon the petitioner filed contempt case alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondents and to punish them as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Thereafter, the respondent- Corporation filed vacate stay petition along with the counter contending inter alia that the petitioner is guilty of serious misconduct of abusing the superior official and therefore, he was rightly placed under suspension so as to facilitate him to participate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The respondents, however, not stated as to how they have not reinstated the petitioner into service pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced the office order dated 17.06.2014 which clearly shows that the employee who allegedly committed similar misconduct in respect of the same incident, was reinstated into service pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge suspending the suspension order passed against the said employee. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the order of the learned single Judge has not been complied with in the case of the petitioner.
However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the second respondent-APSRTC will reinstate the petitioner into service pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge.
Considering the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these cases shall stand closed.
Accordingly, the writ petition and the contempt case are closed. The respondents, however, may proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and conclude them within two months from the date of reinstatement of the petitioner.
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date:17.10.2014 ccm
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.473 of 2014 and WRIT PETITION No.6064 of 2014 Date:17-10-2014