The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case B.Surendra v. Dwarka Tiruala & Ors observed and has sentenced the five senior officials which includes APSRTC vice-chairman and managing director D.T Rao IAS, and then principal secretary, Transport M.T Krishna Babu IAS, to simple imprisonment of one month and the court also imposed a fine for an amount of Rs.1,000 each in the case of contempt.
The bench headed by Justice K. Manmadha Rao in the case observed and has stated that it being incumbent upon those who are holding senior position in government in order to ensure that the orders of the court are complied with ‘promptitude’ which being within the time stipulated for its compliance.
In the present case, the case of contempt was filed against the senior officials for not complying with the order of the High Court in August 2022, wherein the court directed the regularization of the services of the petitioners on par with the petitioners’ juniors and the court further ordered payment of salary differences and consequential benefits up to date, which being along with interest.
It has also been contended by the bench of Justice Rao that the contents of the counter-affidavit speak volumes of the conduct of the respondents which in not implementing the said order.
Further, the court in the case stated that in every adjournment in the case of contempt, thus, the respondents representing that the writ appeal is pending and seeking time. Therefore, the said court has granted several adjournments in this case at the request of learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, so far neither the stay order being produced and nor comply with the orders of the said court by the respondents or contemnors. Therefore, the said act of the respondents in not comply with the order of this court amounts to contempt of courts.
The court also observed in the case that the respondent is given ample opportunity for the compliance of the said order, thus, but they are simply dodging the matter.
Adding to it, the court stated that though the respondents are called for personal appearance and the Court has expressed and has directed to comply with the order itself, but they did not come forward in order to comply of with the same. Further, the court in the case decided to interfere in the contempt proceedings.