Contempt Case No. 57 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This contempt case is filed with the following prayer: "..-to punish the respondents under Sections 1O to 12 of Conte.mpt Court Act, 1971 for willful and deliberate d.isobedience of the orders passed bg the Hon'ble Justice Sn. Anil Kumor Jukonti of thb Hon'bl,e Court in Writ Petition No.33270 of 2O24 dated 27. 1 1.2024 in the interest of justbe and to pass...."

2. Heard Mr. Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent.

3. W.P.No.3327O of 2024 was filed before this Court by petitioner and this Court by order, dated 27.11.2024, passed the foilowing order: ''6. This Court is of the opinion that responrlent No.3 has misconceived the medical invalidation certificate, dated 15.05.2024, issued in respect of petitioner by Medical Board. A team of doctor-s of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, opined that petitioner was suffering from chronic illnesses such as End Stage of Liver Disease... etc. lt appears that respondent No.3 has taken upon himself the task of certification whether petitioner is physically fit or not. It defies the logic of this Court as to how the District tevel Committee on physical examination of petitioner opined that petitioner was f1t to discharge duties and the same 2 was held to be a valid examination and opinion by the District Collector. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that it is the technical cornmittee/ professional body which has to conclude whether an individua-l is incapacitated for further service or not. When queried, learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader for Services-Il appearing for respondents, is unable to produce any rries, regulations or circulars as to the power of Collector to discard the medical invalidation certificate.

8. Having perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that proceedings, dated 17.O9.2O24, passed by respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.3 i.e., District Collector shall consider the medical invalidation certificate, dated 15.05.2O24, issued by Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, without any interpolation or extrapolation and pass appropriate proceedings in accordance with law within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs." I

4. A notice, dated 06.72.2024, was issued to the petitioner. Challenging this notice, dated 06.12.2024, the present contempt case is fi1ed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that instead of implementing the orders of the Court, the District Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Ofhcer, on the instructions of the Collector and District Magistrate, directed the petitioner to appear before the Collector on 17.72.2024 at IO:OO A.M., without fail. It is 3 C-C No.57 2015 contended that without complying with the order of this Court, notice issued is in violation of the orders of this Court.

5. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, arother notice dated 15.02.2025, was issued by the District Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Officer. That in the notice, it was stated that proposal submitted for retirement from Government serrices on medical invalidation was rejected by District Level Committee and the petitioner was instructed to appear before Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, on 2O.O2.2O25 for re-medical examination as per the note orders of District Collector.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the order in W.P.No.3327O of 2024, it was observed that it is the technical committee/professional body, which has to conclude whether an individual is incapacitated for further service or not. That in spite of this observation, the contemnor ventured beyond his jurisdictional power and directed the District Veterinary and Animal Husbandry 4 c.C.No.57 2025 Officer to issue notice to petitioner. It is further submitted that such a course of action could not have been adopted by respondent herein. It is a-lso submitted that respondent has to implement/comply the order of this Court, dated 27.11.2024. That in the present case, there is no compliance and the respondent exceeded the scope of the order by directing the petitioner to be present for a re-medical examination.

7. It is submitted that a Regional Medical Board (Osmania General Hospital) issued a medical invalidation certificate, the same was held to be invalid and came to be rejected. It is pointed out that, in the notice dated 06.12.2024, it is stated that the District Level Committee on physical examination of the petitioner opined that the petitioner is fit to discharge duties. It is further submitted that if both the notices dated 06. 12.2024 and, 15.02.2025 are read together, the acts of respondent amounts to willful disobedience and constitutes a contempt. Hence, the contempt case. 5 C.C No.57 2025

8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearlng on beha-lf of respondent has submitted that it is only by inadvertenct:, notice has been issued to petitioner and the same has been withdrawn by proceedings, dated 22.O2.202s. .)

9. It is further submitted that an unconditional apologr is tendered by respondent and preaded the court to show indulgence in condoning the act of respondent. It is further submitted that the oflice of Additional Advocate General has advised respondent to implement/comply the order, dated 27.1I.2024, and that respondent be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record ald considered the rival submissions.

11. By order, dated 22.71.2024, in W.p.No.332TO of 2024, tb;is Court directed the respondent herein to consider the medica_l invalidation certificate, dated lS.OS.2024, issued by the Regionar Medical Board, osmania Generar Hospital, Hyderabad, without any interpolation C.C-No.57_2025 6 extrapolation. The Medical Invalidation Certificate issued by Regional Medical Board on 15.05.2024 (consisting of a Professor and HOD of Medicine (a Member of Regional Medica-l Board), a Professor of Surgery' (a Member of Regional Medical Board), Superintendent of Osmania General Hospital (Chairman of Regional Medical Board)), is as follows: "We the members of the Regional Medical Board have carefully examined Sri J.Komaraiah, Veterinary Livestock Officer, working in the ofhce of the District Veterina4r & Animal Husbandry Officer, Rajanna Sircilia District. His age according to his own statement is 55 years and by appearance is about 55 years. We consider Sri J.Komaraiah have completely and permanenfly incapacitated for further service in the department to which he belongs in consequence of "Hypertension, Osteoarthritis of both knees, Chronic Liver Disease, End Stage of Liver Disease, he cannot perform his duties, hence inva,lid (falls under G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.20O8 at Sl.No.16 (i) (g) (S)". His incapacitSr does not appear to have been caused by irregular or intemperate habits. Marks of Identification: A mole on the right side of chest. Date of Medical Board: l5-O5-2024. Dr. S.Premsagar, Dr. B.Raju M.S. M.D. Dr. B.Nagender M.S. Professor & HOD Professor of Surgery Superintendent of Medicine '7 C cNo J7 2025

12. This Court stated in its order, dated 27.11.2024, that it is for the technical committee/professional body to conclude whether an individual is incapacitated for further service or not. Surprisingly, in the pr<iceedings, dated 17 .O9.2024 . issued by Additional Collector, it is stated that on physical examination of the petitioner by the District Level Committee, the petitioner was fit to discharge his duties. This observation was considered and this Court opined not to interpolate or extrapolate the Medical Invalidation Certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board on 15.05.2024 and passed the order in writ petition on 27 .l I .2024.

13. Surprisingly, a notice dated O6. 12.2024 was issued after the order in writ petition. On perusal of the notice, dated 06.12.2024, it is observed that the respondent herein directed the District Veterinar5r and Animal Husbandry Officer to issue notice to petitioner that petitioner should appear before the Collector on 17.12.2024. The contents of notice are as follows: "Sri J.Komurajah, Veterinaq/ Livestock Ofhcer, Primary Veterinarlr Centre, Gollapally has applied for I I J.4K J C C.No.57 2015 8 Medical Invalidation, the same was forwarded to the Medical Board authorities through reference 2nd cited. Accordingly the Regional Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad has issued Medical Invalidation Certificate through reference 3rd cited, in respect of Sri J.Komuraiah, Veterinary Livestock OiEcer, Primary Veterinary Centre, Gollapally -of Rajanna Sircilla District, the same has been submitted to the District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla for further orders. The District level committee was examined the proposals of Sri J.Komuralah, Veterinary Livestock Officer, Primary Veterinary Centre, Gollapally of Yellareddipet Mardal and on Physical exa-rnination of the above individual "it is opined that, the individual is ht to dlscharge duties. Hence the invalidation proposals submitted in favour of Sri,J.Komuraiah, Veterinary Livestock Offrcer, Primary Veterinary Centre Gollapally Yellareddipet Maldal are rejected" vide 6th reference cited, the same was served to you through reference 7th cited. In view of the above, Sri J, Komuraiah, Veterinar5r Livestock Offrcer has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and submitted the copy of Court Orders through W.P. No. 33270 of 2024, Dt.27- ll-2o24 of the Hon'ble High Court, Telangana Hyderabad vide reference 8th cited, and requested to accept his Medical Invalidation. In this regard, as per the instructions of the Collector and District Magistrate, Rajanna Sireilla, this notice is hereby issued to Sri J.Komuraiah, Veterinary Livestock O{Ecer, Primaqr Veterinary Centre, Gollapalli to appear before the Collector and District Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla at Collectorate on 17th December, 2024 at IO.OOAM without faiI."

14. Added to this notice, another notice was issued during the pendency of the contempt proceedings 9 C L-No.S1 2015

15.O2.2025 to the petitioner. The contents of the notice are as follows: "Sri J.Komuraiah, Veterinary Livestock OIIicer, Primary VeterinaS/ Centre, Gollapalli who is on l,eave w.e.f 19-01-2024 is informed that,. the Medical Invalidation issued by the Regional Medica_l Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad was rejected by the District l,evel Committee, Rajanna Sircilla on 31.08.2024, which was directly forwarded by the Medical Superintendent District Headquarters Hospital, Rajanna Sircilla to Osmania Ceneral Hospital, Hyderabad due to lack of Specialist Doctors at Rajanna Sircilla without following Lhe G.O. Ms. No.66 1. Therefore, Sri J.Komuraiah, Veterinary Livestock Offlicer, Primary Veterinary Centre, Goltapalli is instmcted to appear before the Superintendent, Districl Headquarters Hospital, Rajanna Sircilla on 2O.O2.2O25 at l1:OO A.M for Re-Medical examination as per the Note orders of the District Collector Rajanna Sircilla without fail."

15. It delies the logic of this Court as to how the respondent could issue two notices without complying/ implementirrg the order. No appeal is liled, nor any re\dew preferred against the order in writ petition. It is stated in the notices that on physical examination of petitioner, the District Level Committee opined that petitioner was fit to discharge duties and the invalidation proposals submitted were rejected. District r,ever committee consists of District JAK. J C c No 57 2025 10 Medical and Health Officer, Unit Officer, Chairman being District Collector

16. It is beyond the comprehension of this Court as to how a District Level Committee can reject the Medical Invalidation Certificate issued by the RMB, consisting of three highly qualified Doctors (Professor and HOD of Medicine, Professor of Surgery and Medical Superintendent of Osmania Genera-l Hospital). It appears that the respondent is of the opinion that a RMB is inferior to District Level Committee. The interesting point is that RMB has stated that they have carefully examined the petitioner, but whereas the District Level Committee on mere physical examination concluded that the petitioner was fit for duties, this is loathsome. After the conclusion that the petitioner is fit for duties, he is being asked to get himself re-examined medically. This Court finds it difficult to pen any words further about the condubt of the respondent.

17. In the Medical Invalidation Certificate, it is stated that petitioner is completely and permanently incapacitated : 11 C C-No 5/_:02t for further service in the department to which he belongs in consequence of "Hypertension, Osteoarthritis of both keens, Chronic Liver Disease, End Stage of Liver Disease, he cannot perform his duties, hence invalid (fa,lls under G.o.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 at Sl.No.16 (tXd(S))". The RMB also referred to G.O.Ms.No.66l and stated that the same falls under 16(i)(g)(3). No more observations need to be made aly further with regard to the Certificate issued by RMB. Suffice to say that it is issued by a competent body consisting of professionals of rich experience. They hold high positions in a reputed Government Hospital. RMB is a superior body of professiona_ls to that of District kvel Committee.

18. Notice, dated 15.02.2025, also runs on same lines. This notice is issued during the pendency of the contempt case. This is a clear case of willful disobedience ald contumacious conduct. Though an unconditional apologr is offered, it appears, it is only intended to cover up the violation. Notice issued on 15.02.2O25 establishes the continued willful disobedience. The power to punish for I C C No tZ 2025 t2 contempt is intended to maintain effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course ofjustice. It is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphoid and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law. 1 9. Learned Additional Advocate Genera-l has fervently submitted that respondent has expressed his unconditional apologr and undertakes not to repeat the same. The acts committed by respondent in issuing notice / proceedings or directions to issue notices/ proceedings, after this Court's order, dated 27.1I.2024, cannot be condoned. This Court was inclined to impose healy costs on respondent, but a fervent request was made by learned Additional Advocate General. This Court restrains itself for imposing any costs considering the long career of the officer.

20. The proceedings dated 22.02.2025 are placed o1l record. The contents of the proceedings are as follows: "In the reference 1st read above, the Hon'b1e High Court for the Telangana State in W.P.No.3327O /2024, Dated: 27.11.2024 lnas passed orders by setting aside the orders passed by the District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla vide Procs.No.A2l 58512C24, Dated.: 77.O9.2024 l3 C C No 57 2025 of District Collector, Rajanna Sirciila and instructed to consider the Medica-l Invalidation Certificate, Dated: 15.05.2024, issued by Medical Board, Osmania General Hospitat, Hyderabad, without any interpolation or extrapolation ald pass appropriate proceedings in accordance with law within a period of two weeks tiom the date of receipt of copy of the proceedings. As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Dated: 27.11.2024 the medical report has been considered. The District Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Rajanna Sircilla Shall take necessary steps to act in furtherance of the orders passed hereto."

21. On perusal of the proceedings issued by respondent, dated 22.02.2025, it is not forthcoming that the respondent intends to implement the order of this Court d,ated27.ll.2024 passed in W.P.No.33,270 of 2024.

22. When queried, it is stated across the bar by learned Additional Advocate General that respondent has in fact stated on oath in the af{idavit that respondent would implement the order, dated 27.11.2024. This Court is of the view that respondent shall stand by the statement adverted to in the affidavit. It is lastly submitted that G.O.Ms.No.661 empowers respondent to have a fresh relook into the matter. It is reminded by this Court that the Medical Invalidation Certificate of the RMB has referred to I t I t4 c.c.No 57 2025 G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, and further added 16 (i)(g)(.1) in the certificate.

23. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that a timeframe be fixed for implementation of the order, dated 27.1I.2O24. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the order, dated 27.7L.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.No.3327O of 2024 shall be implemented . within two weeks.

24. With the above observation, the contempt case 1S closed by directing the respondent to implement the order of this Court dated 27.I1.2024 passed in W.P.No.3327O of 2024 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD'. M, RAMANA KRISHNA EPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER i Ramesh, Advocate I lmran Khan, Addition al Advocate General tOPUCI \ To, 1 3 kanl['Sl. I C to Mr. NaYakwad C to Mr. Mohammed One C One C Two CD CoPies ) HIGH COURT DATED:24102t2Q25 ,) ORDER CC.No.S7 of 2025 I \ a) .; ? ? 5 Rrn ir::i t (. SPATC THE CONTEMPT CASE IS CLOSED (n o l{ {