CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1951 of 2025 v. Mukesh Kumar Meena Ias & Ors.

Order

Petitioner seeks to punish the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful violation of the interim orders dated 07.05.2025 passed in W.P. No.12592 of 2025.

2. (a) Writ petition has been instituted assailing the action of respondents in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary to Government to be wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to declare that petitioner is entitled for promotion without reference 2 CGR, J C.C. No.1951 of 2025 to C.C. No.28 of 2023 on the file of Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, with all consequential benefits. (b) Further, I.A. No.1 of 2025 was filed along with the writ petition seeking interim direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion without reference to C.C. No.28 of 2023 on the file of Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. (c) The case as pleaded in the writ petition was that petitioner while working as Deputy Secretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, based on complaint, was implicated in a case in FIR No.01/RCO-ACB-GNT/2020 for offence under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 r/w Section 506 of IPC on the allegation of demanding of illegal gratification, upon investigation, charge sheet came to be laid against him and the matter is presently pending in C.C. No.28 of 2023. Simultaneously, petitioner was issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.845, General Administration (SC.D) Department, dated 02.05.2023 and that the

departmental proceedings are pending. He has challenged criminal proceedings in W.P. No.9328 of 2025 before this Court 3 CGR, J C.C. No.1951 of 2025 and the same is pending for consideration. He also filed W.P. No.34301 of 2022 as he was not considered for promotion on the ground of pendency of FIR, wherein this Court has passed interim order dated 07.12.2022 directing respondents to consider his case for promotion in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.66, dated

30.01.1991. The writ petition stated to have been disposed of. As he did not put in two years of service in feeder category of Deputy Secretary as on 01.09.2022, his case was not considered. As he completed aforesaid minimum service of two years, he made yet again representation and since his case has not been considered, he preferred W.P. No.12592 of 2025. (d) This Court, at the admission stage, based on instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I, passed following interim direction: “5. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary without reference to C.C. No.28 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, subject to complying the requirement of minimum required service of two years in the feeder category pending further orders.” 4 CGR, J C.C. No.1951 of 2025 (e) As the respondents have not taken any further steps in furtherance to aforesaid interim orders, present contempt case has been instituted on 23.07.2025. After filing of contempt, the respondents stated to have issued memo dated 20.05.2025 inter alia stating that the DPC during the meeting held on 30.06.2025 though has considered the case of petitioner and recommended him to be included in the panel, however, promotion came to be deferred until termination of disciplinary cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.424, General Administration (Services – C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 r/w G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.

3. (a) Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for petitioner contends that despite clear directions issued by this Court to consider the case of petitioner for promotion without reference to the criminal case, in deliberate violation of such direction, the respondents have purposefully denied the promotion under the guise of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which clearly tantamounts to willful and deliberate action for punishing the respondents under Contempt of Courts Act. 5 CGR, J C.C. No.1951 of 2025 (b) He further contends that the respondents have never raised or taken such objection at earlier point in time, rather all through the only objection raised was with respect to non-completion of minimum period of service of two years besides pendency of the criminal case, therefore, as initiation of disciplinary proceedings being offshoot of the criminal cases, they were not justified in denying the promotion. The explanation so offered in the memo dated 25.07.2025 is clearly to circumvent the interim orders, which tantamounts to deliberate disobedience and the conduct of the respondents is clearly contumacious. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in E.T.Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association and another1 and Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and others2.

4. Sri G.Raju, learned counsel appearing for respondents, per contra, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed, submits that the case of petitioner has been considered for promotion by the DPC having regard to the directions of this Court, inasmuch as the said directions were clear without any ambiguity that the instead of the court exercising its contempt jurisdiction thereby taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing judgment or order. The relevant observations read as under:— 19 CGR, J C.C. No.1951 of 2025 “The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order… The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order.” (Emphasis supplied)

11. Keeping in view the above exposition of law on the aspect of the contempt jurisdiction and reverting back to the facts of 20 CGR, J C.C. No.1951 of 2025 present case, as observed above, the petitioner has not specifically pleaded or prayed for consideration of his promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings. Resultantly, interim direction granted was confined only consideration of his case for promotion without reference to criminal case and not the disciplinary proceedings.

12. As disciplinary proceedings are different facet which petitioner admittedly is facing and pendency of the same eclipses his entitlement for promotion in view of the embargo under G.O.Ms.424, dated 25.05.1976 r/w G.O.Ms.No.257, dated

10.06.1999, it cannot be said that the respondents deliberately and in fraudulent violation of the orders, denied promotion by resorting to a new reason. This Court, in contempt jurisdiction, clearly will have to see whether the order against which contempt is instituted has been implemented in its true letter and spirit.

13. As seen from the memo dated 25.07.2025, it is very much clear that after passing of the interim order, the case of petitioner was placed before the DPC meeting held on 13.06.2025 and considering ACRs and other relevant records and material placed before it and after overall assessment of his service record, the 21 CGR, J C.C. No.1951 of 2025 respondents have taken a decision to include the name of petitioner in the panel, however, deferred the promotion until termination of disciplinary case.

14. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondents did act in compliance of the interim directions and that there is any deliberate or willful act of disobedience as alleged.

15. Accordingly, this Contempt Case stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J