In Re.. v. Smt. M.Padmakala

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT Suo Motu Contempt Case No.1198 of 2016 in CRP (SR) No.18770 of 2016 ORDER:

It is an admitted fact that the counsel for the petitioner received a message on 30.06.2016, that day on which he filed civil revision petition and it was allotted S.R. number as 'CRP (SR) No.18770 of 2016'. It is also an admitted fact that till date, counsel for the revision petitioner has not received any message regarding the objections raised by the Registry. However, counsel for the revision petitioner fairly admitted that on the day when he mentioned before the court and Lunch Motion was granted, neither himself nor his clerk was available near the Branch, so that if any objections were there, that could be cleared.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 01.08.2016, the Assistant Registrar has filed affidavit, which is on record. Apart from the affidavit, it is fairly admitted that on 01.07.2016, due to the extension of service given to one Officer from the Registry, most of the staff was on pen down strike. It is admitted that they were present in the Branch but work not done in a routine manner. The Deputy Registrar, who is also present in the court, has submitted that he received directions of this court through the Registrar (Judicial) at 12.30 P.M. However, as he was called three times by Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar in his court, therefore, he transmitted the instructions received from the Registrar (Judicial) to the Assistant Registrar, so that the directions of this court could be complied with.

3. The Assistant Registrar received this information at 2.00 P.M. and he came to know that there were objections in the revision petition and accordingly, the bundle was returned to the 'returned counter'. Thereafter, he did not verify whether the objections were cleared or not. However, at 2.30 P.M., one person by name Sri Veera Raghavalu, A.S.O. of C.R.P. section came and taken all Lunch Motion Bundles, without numbering, saying that the bundles are directed to be produced before the court as it is. Therefore, he did not take any steps in the matter. The Deputy Registrar has stated in the court that on that day most of the staff was not present in the section, which fact he conveyed to the Registrar (Judicial), in writing, so that if any action is to be taken, that can be taken.

4. From this whole episode, it is clear that Contemnor-Scrutiny Officer, in a routine manner, at last under pressure cleared the file at 1.30 P.M., with some objections. Since the objections were not removed, the file could not be produced before the court at 2.30 P.M. She did not bother about the directions of this court conveyed through the Registrar (Judicial), who is in-charge of the Section. The Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar both have taken this issue very lightly and did not bother to inform this court the reason as to why the file was not cleared and not listed before this court.

5. Be that as it may, due to the germane of the facts, I hereby of the opinion that let the Registrar (Judicial) should take action against the Officers, including the Contemnor herein, who did not do any work though were present in the Section. The action taken report shall be filed before this court.

6. In view of the above, I hereby discharge the Contemnor from convicting under the Contempt of Courts Act. Let the Departmental action if any be initiated in this matter against the concerned as per law. The objections and apologies of the above three Officers are hereby accepted and they are warned to be careful in future.

7. The contempt case is, accordingly, closed. _____________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J Date: 08.08.2016 BSS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT Suo-Mot u Contempt case No.1198 of 2016 in CRP (SR) No.18770 of 2016 Date: 08.08.2016 BSS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [Special Original Jurisdiction] THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN PRESENT SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE No. 1198 OF 2016 IN CRP.[SR] No. 18770 OF 2016 Between:

In Re..

Smt. M. Padmakala Scrutiny Officer, New Filing Section [Civil Wing] High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

... Respondent/Contemnor For the Petitioner :

Advocate General [TG] For the Respondent :

Sri K. Sarath The court made the following: [order follows]

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE No. 1198 OF 2016 IN CRP.[SR] No. 18770 OF 2016 O R D E R :

The present contempt case is listed before this Court, pursuant to administrative order dated 05/12/2016 passed by this Court.

2. Vide order dated 08/08/2016 passed in suo motu contempt case No. 1198 of 2016 in CRP [SR].No. 18770 of 2016, the matter has been looked up by the Registrar [Judicial] and submitted that as per the report given by Section Officers, Other Registrars, staff of computer section [serial No.5], D-I Budget Section [serial No.6] and O.P. Cell [serial No.10] as detailed in Table-III of the report have participated in the pen down strike. The Registrar [Judicial] addressed a letter dated 14/.09/2016 to the Registrar [Protocol] thereby requested to furnish the copy of C.D. of C.C. footage of staircase of Administrative Building recorded on

01/07/2016 between 11:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. so as to take action against the staff members, who participated in the pen down strike, accordingly, the Registrar [Protocol] forwarded the C.D. through letter dated 29/09/2016 pertaining to the incident happened on 01/07/2016.

3. As per the report given by the Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars, after viewing C.D. of C.C. footage, 63 staff members as detailed in table -IV were found sitting on the stair case of Administrative Building, i.e., near E-seva and standing nearer to the stair case on 01/7/2016 and participated in the pen down strike.

4. As per Rule 17 of Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 in case of Division-I Officers viz., Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Assistant Registrars, Special Officer, Section Officers, Scrutiny Officers, Accounts Officer, Court Masters, Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges and Registrars, the Hon'ble The Chief Justice is the appropriate Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to

impose any kind of penalty and in case of Division-II Officers, viz., Translators and Deputy Section Officers, Overseer, Assistant Section Officers, Computer Operators, Assistants, Readers and Examiners, Telex Operator, Telephone Operator, Typists and Copyists and Division-III employees viz., Class-IV employees, the Registrar [Administration] is the competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to impose penalty.

5. Accordingly, I hereby direct the Competent Authority to take steps in accordance with law.

6. No further order required to be passed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT.

15/12/2016 I s L

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE No. 1198 OF 2016 IN CRP.[SR] No. 18770 OF 2016 Date: 15/12/2016 Circulation No. 207 Court Master : I s L