AP HC Sentences 1 Month Jail For 2 IAS Officers, 3 Others In Contempt Of Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently sentenced 2 IAS officers and 3 other government officials to one-month simple imprisonment for contempt of court.

Justice K Manmadha Rao held them guilty of contempt for intentionally disobeying an August 2022 order in a service matter.

The order reasoned that “Not only have the contemnors unreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the orders of this Court without explaining the cause for such default, or seeking extension of time for compliance; but they have also sought to avoid compliance of the order, even after taking benefit of the extended time period granted for compliance of the same.”

The petitioners argued that they made a representation requesting the respondents to execute the Court’s orders, but no action was taken for service regularization.

However, the respondents asserted that they filed an appeal against the order, which was yet to be considered. In view of this, they had not complied with the order. It was further argued that, normally the court doesn’t initiate or determine any contempt proceedings wherein the order is appealed.

It was also submitted that under the writ rules if no time limit is fixed to implement an order, the same should be implemented in 2 months.

The Court recorded in its order that, “In fact, the Writ Appeal was filed in November 2022. Further, two months period was to expire on 01.10.2022 as contended by the respondents. This Contempt Case was filed in the month of November 2022. This shows that the respondents deliberately dodged the matter without compliance with this Court’s orders even after the expiry of two months.”

While examining the arguments, the single-judge noted that as per settled law, unless and until there was a stay of the proceedings in appeal, the court has to proceed with contempt proceedings.

Additionally, many adjournments were said to have been permitted on the ground of the appeal’s pendency.

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondents/ contemnors is such as would justify invocation of contempt jurisdiction of this Court.”

With this, the order stated that it was the responsibility of the respondents to ensure that court orders are compiled on time and any difficulty in compliance would require them to approach the court seeking an extension of time.

“Admittedly, in the present case, no such efforts were made by the respondents, except representing that the writ appeal is pending for six months.”