S.Govinda Rao v. K. Venkateswarlu

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1311 OF 2018 DATED :20.09.2018 Between :

S.Govinda Rao S/o.Late S.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 41 yrs, Occu : Assistant Divisional Engineer (Suspended), O/o.G.V.M.C. Visakhapatnam, R/o.Kintali Village & Post, S.M.Puram (Via), Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh ..

Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Energy, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1311 OF 2018 ORDER :

W.P.No.8266 of 2017 was disposed of by order dated 21.03.2017 directing the Chief General Manager (ADM), T.S.GENCO, to consider the representation dated 02.09.2016, examine the desirability of further continuation of suspension by ascertaining the status of investigation from ACB authorities and based on the information furnished by the ACB authorities, take appropriate further course of action. This Court fixed six weeks time to take a decision as directed. Alleging inaction in taking decision as directed by the Court, this contempt case is filed. 2.

The respondent filed counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit copy of the proceedings dated 23.08.2018 is enclosed where under, on due consideration of the directions issued by this Court, the issue of further continuation of suspension was considered and decided to continue the petitioner under suspension.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the directions of this Court, the respondent was required to comply the order within six weeks, whereas, it took more than one year to take a decision. Therefore, it does not amount to compliance of the directions issued.

4.

In paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the counter affidavit, the respondent explained the steps taken by him in pursuant to the order of this Court and also the reasons for delay in taking decision as directed by this Court.

- 3 - 5.

The averments in Paragraph Nos.4 to 6 are noted and this Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned therein on the issue of delay in taking decision as directed by this Court. 6.

Thus, the Contempt case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedies, if advised, against the order of further continuation of suspension. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 20th September, 2018 Rds