IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1590 of 2008 DATE:29.06.2010 Between:
G.Ananda Ratan And:
M.K.Rahaman and 2 others.
…… Appellant/Petitioner …..Respondents ORDER:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1590 of 2008 The petitioner seeks revision of order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Special Judge for S.P.E & A.C.B cases, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.188 of 2008 in Crl.M.P.No. 79 of 2002 in Crime No.17/ACB-VJA/98 by which petition filed by the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1974 read with Rule 5(d) of Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980 was dismissed.
2) The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in A.P. Engineering Service. The petitioner had started litigation before the Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.761 of 1996 and obtained order dated 09.12.1997 from the said Tribunal. Consequently, the Government passed G.O.Rt.No.1450 of Irrigation and CAD (Ser.1) Department, dated 01.12.1998 regulating compulsory wait period of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed private complaint in the lower Court on 30.06.1998 against D.Rami Reddy, Retired Chief Engineer and 5 others including Principal Secretary in Government under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 166 and 182 I.P.C. The said complaint was referred by the lower Court to the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) who after investigation filed final report in Crime No.17/ACB-VJA/98 referring the case without filing charge sheet on the ground that allegations in the complaint are not substantiated. Thereupon the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2002 by way of protest petition; and it is stated that the said protest petition is pending enquiry in the lower Court.
3) It is alleged that the respondents 1 and 2 who are working as Engineers-in-Chief in Irrigation and CAD Department directly interfered with criminal proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2002 by memo dated 12.03.2003/25.03.2003. It is further alleged that K.Bhayatha Reddy the then Engineer-in-Chief issued memo dated 07.06.2004 framing 4th charge for making allegations against the officials in his private complaint dated 30.06.1998 and that the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 04.06.2007 imposed major penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and that the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 06.12.2007 transferred the petitioner and posted his juniors as in-charge Executive Engineers. None of the respondents 1 and 2 is a party to Crime No.17/ACB-VJA/98 or Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2002 of the lower Court. The petitioner did not place order dated 06.12.2007 of the 1st respondent transferring to petitioner and posting his juniors as in-charge Deputy Executive Engineers. Protest petition filed by the petitioner in the lower Court is pending for the last 8 years from the year 2002, the petitioner cannot claim that he cannot be transferred on any administrative grounds for all these 8 years or since the year 1998 when he lodged private complaint in the lower Court. Keeping the Assistant Engineer in-charge of the Deputy Executive Engineer due to lack of hands for posting as Deputy Executive Engineer, will never amount to contempt of Court. The petitioner is labouring under some mistaken impression that he cannot be touched by the head of the department or head of the office or the Government because of pendency of protest petition filed by them in the lower Court.
4) Proceedings dated 04.06.2007 of the 2nd respondent shows that charges were framed against the petitioner for making false allegations against the higher officials in violation of Conduct Rules, 1964 and also which were enquired by A.C.B authorities and found to be false. It is a fact that after making investigation, A.C.B found that the petitioner could not make out and substantiate allegations levelled against his higher officers in the private complaint filed before the lower Court. It is only after the said final report was filed by A.C.B in the lower Court, the charges were framed. Neither the department nor the 2nd respondent is a party to the protest petition filed by the petitioner in the lower Court in the year 2002. The petitioner could not impute knowledge of pendency of protest petition to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent knowingly interfered with pending proceedings in the lower Court.
5) No doubt, as laid down in S.K.Sarkar V. Vinay Chandra Misra[1] of the Supreme Court, this Court has got power under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act to take cognizance of instances of criminal contempt of subordinate Courts. But, the question is whether there is any contempt made by any of the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Govind Sahai v. State of U.P[2] of the Supreme Court on this aspect. In that reported decision, a member of Congress party filed suit for declaration of election to Congress organisational body as void due to irregularities, and thereafter the said member of Congress party who filed the suit as plaintiff was expelled from party membership on the basis of a party resolution which prohibited members from resorting to Courts in regard to party matters. The Supreme Court held that the said expulsion amounts to contempt of Court. I n Govind Sahai (2 supra) the plaintiff who filed the suit was expelled from Congress party because he approached Court of law on organisational matters. The said expulsion took place when the suit was pending and since reason for expulsion was filing of that pending suit. Whereas in the case on hand, charge was framed against the petitioner and punishment was imposed in departmental enquiry on past action of the petitioner by way of making false allegations in a private complaint against his higher officers, which allegations were already found to be false and not substantiated by A.C.B after investigation. This not a case where charge in the departmental enquiry was in respect of filing protest petition which is pending. Basis of the charge viz., the petitioner made allegations against his superior officials by way of filing a private complaint and after enquiry A.C.B found the same to be false and not substantiated, is based on true facts which already took place. The allegations in the private complaint are found to be false even by A.C.B after investigation. It is not as if the department or the 2nd respondent found fault with the petitioner immediately after filing private complaint and when investigation or enquiry into allegations made in the complaint was pending. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent interfered with administration of justice by imposing punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Remedy of the petitioner in respect of the said punishment is before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Thus, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that any of the respondents 1 and 2 committed any criminal contempt of Court by their respective actions. Though the lower Court dismissed the petition on some technical ground, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the petition filed by the petitioner in the lower Court.
6) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 29, 2010
KSH
[1] 1981 AIR (SC) 723
[2] 1968 AIR (SC) 1513