Andhra Pradesh High Court Partially Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Former Principal Secy (Finance) For Violating Court Orders

Update: 2024-05-02 07:28 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has stayed part of the contempt proceedings and adverse findings against the Principal Secretary to the Government (Finance Department) suo-motu taken up by the Court last week.“We have perused the observations in paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of the impugned order. The remarks are certainly adverse. It would not be difficult to state that...

Your free access to Live Law has expired

Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Subscribe Now

“We have perused the observations in paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of the impugned order. The remarks are certainly adverse. It would not be difficult to state that the same would dent the image of the individual. That apart, the directions issued in paragraphs 38 and 39 will have serious civil consequences and mar the career prospects of the appellant," the Court said.

The then Principal Secretary, who is presently officiating as Joint Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India had recently been pulled up by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for 'executive arrogance'.

The Single Judge Bench, questioned the competency of the petitioner to hold the post, because, despite clear instructions given by the Court on a previous occasion, the petitioner failed to implement the same and rather passed directions in direct contravention of the order.

The counsel representing the Joint Secretary before the Division Bench of Justice G. Narendar and Justice Harinath N. contended that the order was passed without as much as putting the petitioner on notice and giving him a chance to render an explanation.

The Bench noted that the observations made against the joint secretary in the impugned judgment were certainly adverse and could seriously dent the image of the petitioner.

Relying on Dilip Kumar Deka v. State of Assam, the court deemed it appropriate to stay paras 35-39 of the judgement, the court said:

“On a query, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent would fairly admit that no notice was issued to the concerned officer before passing the impugned remarks.In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the observations made in paragraphs 35 to 37 and the directions issued in paragraphs 38 and 39 are required to be stayed. “

The matter is posted after court vacations.

WA 458 of 2024Counsel for petitioner: Special Government Pleader

Full View

Andhra Pradesh High Court Partially Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Former Principal Secy (Finance) For Violating Court Orders

Similar News