Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences 5 Govt Officers Including 2 IAS To 1 Month Imprisonment In Contempt Case
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has sentenced five senior officials, including APSRTC vice-chairman and managing director D.T Rao IAS, and then principal secretary (Transport) M.T Krishna Babu IAS, to simple imprisonment of one month and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000 each in a contempt case.Justice K. Manmadha Rao said it is incumbent upon those who are holding senior position in government to...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has sentenced five senior officials, including APSRTC vice-chairman and managing director D.T Rao IAS, and then principal secretary (Transport) M.T Krishna Babu IAS, to simple imprisonment of one month and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000 each in a contempt case.
Justice K. Manmadha Rao said it is incumbent upon those who are holding senior position in government to ensure that the orders of the court are complied with "promptitude, and within the time stipulated for its compliance."
The contempt case was filed against the senior officials for not complying with the High Court's order passed in August 2022, which directed the regularization of the petitioners' services on par with the petitioners' juniors and further ordered payment of salary differences and consequential benefits up to date, along with interest.
Justice Rao said contents of the counter-affidavit speak volumes of the conduct of the respondents in not implementing the order.
"Moreover, in every adjournment in the contempt case, the respondents representing that the writ appeal is pending and seeks time. This Court has granted several adjournments in this case at the request of learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; so far, neither stay order is produced nor comply with the orders of this Court by the respondents/ contemnors. Therefore, the acts of the respondents in not comply with the order of this court amounts to contempt of courts," the court said.
The court observed that ample opportunity has been given to the respondents for compliance of the order, but simply they are "dodging the matter",
"It is also observed that though the respondents are called for personal appearance and the Court has expressed and directed to comply with the order itself, but they did not come forward to comply with the same. So, in view of the above circumstances, this Court decided to interfere in the contempt proceedings," it added.
Case Title: B.Surendra v. Dwarka Tiruala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 25