K NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. K V RAMANA CHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters illustrate as to how an officer (third Respondent in the contempt case and fourth Respondent in the writ petition hereinafter referred to as the third Respondent), who was not eligible to be promoted as per the statutory rules, but with the active help of all the higher level officers has secured not one but two promotions, to the exclusion of Petitioner in the contempt case who was senior most eligible officer. This case also illustrates as to how the orders of this Court are disobeyed by the officers concerned by finding one lame justification or the other. More disturbing feature further is that the learned Vice Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, has acted in gross judicial indiscipline amounting to contempt of this Court and has knowingly passed an order interdicting implementation of the orders of this Court, challenge to which had failed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. We were, therefore, left with no option but to suspend the order passed by the learned Vice Chairman in the taken up writ petition above and now after hearing these matters at length for final disposal, we are left with no alternative but to highlight this judicial indiscipline on the part of the Vice Chairman apart from breach of hierarchical supremacy of Constitutional Court. However, unpleasant it is to record our disapproval of the action of the officers as well as the learned Vice Chairman of the tribunal, in the interest of supremacy of law and prestige of this Court, we are constrained to deal with both aspects in this order.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows:

(3.) By our order dated 24.12.2010 we had rejected the applications for condonation of delay as well as the review petition moved by the third Respondent and we had also recorded our prima facie satisfaction that the Respondents in the contempt case are prima facie guilty of willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. We had, therefore, admitted the contempt case by issuing form - I notice to the Respondents and we granted further opportunity to the Respondents to enable them to make their submission on their defence as well as the punishment. After we pronounced the said order, it was brought to our notice by the Commissioner of Endowments by filing an additional affidavit dated 24.12.2010 that the official Respondents have issued proceedings dated 14.12.2010, in implementation of the orders of this Court in WP. No. 13039 of 1999 dated 15.06.2009, by reverting the third Respondent herein to the post of special category stenographer by canceling his promotion as Assistant Commissioner as well as further promotion of Deputy Commissioner. It was further brought to our notice that against the said order of reversion dated 14.12.2010 the third Respondent had moved the tribunal in O.A. No. 8887 of 2010 and that the tribunal through its Vice Chairman had suspended the reversion order dated 14.12.2010, referred to above. A copy of the order of the tribunal was placed before us.