Non-Compliance Of Judicial Orders By Govt Officials 'Shameful', Derogatory To Constitution: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set-aside a contempt conviction against senior government officials, accepting their unconditional apology for delay in complying with a previous order of the Court, and has subsequently emphasised that officials adopting a casual approach in complying with Court orders not only undermines the Constitution, but is also “shameful” to the position and...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set-aside a contempt conviction against senior government officials, accepting their unconditional apology for delay in complying with a previous order of the Court, and has subsequently emphasised that officials adopting a casual approach in complying with Court orders not only undermines the Constitution, but is also “shameful” to the position and dignity of the officials.
Initially in 2022, contempt proceedings arose from non-compliance with High Court order directing the District Collector (Kurnool) and Revenue Divisional Officer (appellants) to consider Respondent 1's representations seeking encashment of 300 days of earned leave and release of pensionary benefits within four weeks.
However, there was an inordinate delay of four months in compliance with the order, which prompted Respondent 1 to initiate contempt proceedings. Thereafter, a Single-Judge held the officials guilty of non-compliance and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- on each.
When the officials approached a Division Bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice Subhendu Samanta, challenging the order of the Single-Judge, they contended that there was no wilful lapse on their behalf to comply with the order, and that they had complied with the order, however, following some “unintentional delay”. The appellants requested to consider and accept the unconditional apology tendered by appellants and set-aside the order of punishment.
In this backdrop, the Division Bench observed,
“The appellants, being the senior officials of the Government should have more careful in future in complying with the order of the Court in its true letter and spirit. Casual approach of Government Officials in complying with directions of Constitution Bench not only derogatory towards the Constitution of India, but also shameful to its official position and dignity. However, as an unconditional apology was tendered on behalf of the appellants. The same is accepted with stricture. Under the above observations, the punishment of fine imposed by the learned Single Judge is set aside accepting the unconditional apology of the appellants.”
The Court also endeavoured to enlist the parameters which a Court dealing with a contempt case can verify, namely— (a) whether order under contempt was properly communicated to alleged contemnor; (b) when such order was communicated; (c) whether contemnor was in a position to understand the Court's directions; (d) whether contemnor was in a position or authority to comply with the order; (e) whether contemnor within his authority acted diligently to comply with the order in its true letter and spirit; and (f) whether there were willful latches and disobedience on the part of the alleged contemnor to comply with the order.
The Court further enlisted the points which cannot be determined in a contempt case, such as— (a) jurisdiction of the Court who passed the direction; (b) merit of the matter; (c) merit of the direction; (d) whether the direction is capable of being complied with; (e) all other points which can be determined only by appellate Court.
Lastly, the Court noted that in a contempt appeal, the Appellate Court can– (a) verify the correctness of only those points to be determined by the Court passing order of punishment; (b) whether the order is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt Courts Act; (c) correctness of extent and quantum of punishment; and (d) whether the punishment was commensurate to the alleged disobedience.
In light of the unconditional apology rendered to the Court, the Bench allowed the appeals and set-aside the punishment imposed by the Single-Judge.
Case Number: CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos:31 AND 32 OF 2023