Andhra Pradesh High Court sentences 2 IAS officers, 3 government officials to 1 month in jail for contempt of court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently sentenced two Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officers and three other government officials to one month simple imprisonment for contempt of court [B Surendra v Dwaraka Tiruala Rao]..Justice K Manmadha Rao held them guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying an August 2022 order in a service matter."Not only have the contemnors unreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the orders of this Court without explaining the cause for such default, or seeking extension of time for compliance; but they have also sought to avoid compliance of the order, even after taking benefit of the extended time period granted for compliance of the same," the order reasoned. .The petitioners argued that they made a representation requesting the respondents to implement the Court's orders, but no action was taken for regularisation of their services. .The respondents, however, contended that they filed an appeal against the order, which was yet to be considered. In view of this, they had not complied with the order. It was further argued that normally, the court does not initiate or adjudicate any contempt proceedings wherein the order is appealed. It was also submitted that under the writ rules, if no time limit is fixed for implementation of an order, the same ought to be implemented in two months. .The Court recorded in its order,"In fact the Writ Appeal has been filed in the month of November 2022. Further two months period was to expire on 01.10.2022 as contended by the respondents. This Contempt Case was filed in the month of November 2022. Which shows that the respondents deliberately dodging the matter without compliance of the orders of this Court even after expiry of two months.".On examining the arguments, the single-judge also noted that as per settled law, unless and until there was a stay of the proceedings in appeal, the court has to proceed with contempt proceedings.Additionally, several adjournments were said to have been granted on the ground of the appeal's pendency. "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondents/ contemnors is such as would justify invocation of contempt jurisdiction of this Court.".With this, the order stated that it was the responsibility of the respondents to ensure that court orders are complied with promptly and any difficulty in compliance would require them to approach the court seeking extension of time. "Admittedly, in the present case, no such efforts were made by the respondents, except representing that the writ appeal is pending since six months."Therefore, the respondents were held guilty of contempt. .Advocate M Pitchaiah appeared for the petitioners while standing counsel M Solomon Raju represented the respondents. .[Read Order]