A Kishore Chandra Reddy v. Shri Sunil Sharma Ias
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE Nos.2756, 2757, 2758, 2759, 2762, 2765, 2766, 2767, 2768, 2772, 2775, 2776, 2778, 2783, 2805, 2807, 2808 & 2810 OF 2018 DATED :01.02.2019 C.C.No.2756 of 2018 :
Between :
Chada Ranjith Kumar S/o.Ch.Laxma Reddy, Aged about 41 yrs, Occu : Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Bhupalpally, O/o.District Transport Office, Bhupalpally Government of Telangana, R/o.karimanagar, Telangana State ..
Petitioner And Shri Sunil Sharma, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government Transport Roads and Buildings, Ser IV Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & another.
.. Respondents This court made the following :
- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE Nos.2756, 2757, 2758, 2759, 2762, 2765, 2766, 2767, 2768, 2772, 2775, 2776, 2778, 2783, 2805, 2807, 2808 & 2810 OF 2018 COMMON ORDER :
Batch of Writ petitions were filed challenging the orders of reversion of petitioners from the cadre of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The writ petitions were disposed of by common order dated 08.10.2018, setting aside the order of reversion and further directions were issued. Alleging violation of the said directions, these contempt cases are filed.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners' points out that though the petitioners are reinstated as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors, but they are not retained at the same place from where they were reverted and therefore, it would be amounting to violation of directions of this Court.
4.
A perusal of the order of this Court would show that the Court only held reversion as illegal and set aside the reversion and issued consequential directions on further steps to be taken.
5.
As can be seen from Paragraph No.7 (iv) of the order petitioners were directed to be restored to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. There was no direction to post the petitioners at the same place where they were working. 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that as per the directions, petitioners were to be reinstated within one
- 3 - week from the date of order, whereas, they were reinstated only on 23.10.2018.
7.
Sri Sunil Sharma, Transport Commissioner filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in implementing the orders and also tendered unconditional apology for the delay in implementation.
8.
From a reading of paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed, it appears that though the respondents have to comply the order within one week from the date of order, for the reasons explained in paragraph No.4, he could not immediately pass orders. But orders were passed asking the petitioners to report on or before 23.10.2018 and on 27.10.2018 they were given posting orders. The reasons assigned by the deponent are accepted.
9.
Having regard to the reasons assigned, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately and willfully violated the directions of this Court warranting initiation of contempt proceedings.
10.
Contempt cases are accordingly closed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 01st February, 2019 Rds