1. Petitioner seeks to punish the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful violation of the interim orders dated 07.05.2025 passed in W.P. No.12592 of 2025.

2. (a) Writ petition has been instituted assailing the action of respondents in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary to Government to be wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to declare that petitioner is entitled for promotion without reference to C.C. No.28 of 2023 on the file of Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, with all consequential benefits.

                  (b) Further, I.A. No.1 of 2025 was filed along with the writ petition seeking interim direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion without reference to C.C. No.28 of 2023 on the file of Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada.

                  (c) The case as pleaded in the writ petition was that petitioner while working as Deputy Secretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, based on complaint, was implicated in a case in FIR No.01/RCO-ACB-GNT/2020 for offence under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 r/w Section 506 of IPC on the allegation of demanding of illegal gratification, upon investigation, charge sheet came to be laid against him and the matter is presently pending in C.C. No.28 of 2023. Simultaneously, petitioner was also issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.845, General Administration (SC.D) Department, dated 02.05.2023 and that the departmental proceedings are pending. He has challenged criminal proceedings in W.P. No.9328 of 2025 before this Court and the same is pending for consideration. He also filed W.P. No.34301 of 2022 as he was not considered for promotion on the ground of pendency of FIR, wherein this Court has passed interim order dated 07.12.2022 directing respondents to consider his case for promotion in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991. The writ petition stated to have been disposed of. As he did not put in two years of service in feeder category of Deputy Secretary as on 01.09.2022, his case was not considered. As he completed aforesaid minimum service of two years, he made yet again representation and since his case has not been considered, he preferred W.P. No.12592 of 2025.

                  (d) This Court, at the admission stage, based on instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I, passed following interim direction:

                  “5. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary without reference to C.C. No.28 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, subject to complying the requirement of minimum required service of two years in the feeder category pending further orders.”

                  (e) As the respondents have not taken any further steps in furtherance to aforesaid interim orders, present contempt case has been instituted on 23.07.2025. After filing of contempt, the respondents stated to have issued memo dated 20.05.2025 inter alia stating that the DPC during the meeting held on 30.06.2025 though has considered the case of petitioner and recommended him to be included in the panel, however, promotion came to be deferred until termination of disciplinary cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.424, General Administration (Services – C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 r/w G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.

3. (a) Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for petitioner contends that despite clear directions issued by this Court to consider the case of petitioner for promotion without reference to the criminal case, in deliberate violation of such direction, the respondents have purposefully denied the promotion under the guise of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which clearly tantamounts to willful and deliberate action for punishing the respondents under Contempt of Courts Act.

                  (b) He further contends that the respondents have never raised or taken such objection at earlier point in time, rather all through the only objection raised was with respect to non-completion of minimum period of service of two years besides pendency of the criminal case, therefore, as the initiation of disciplinary proceedings being offshoot of the criminal cases, they were not justified in denying the promotion. The explanation so offered in the memo dated 25.07.2025 is clearly to circumvent the interim orders, which tantamounts to deliberate disobedience and the conduct of the respondents is clearly contumacious. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in E.T.Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association and another((2004) 8 SCC 683) and Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and others((2012) 1 SCC 273 = 2012 AIR SCW 734).

4. Sri G.Raju, learned counsel appearing for respondents, per contra, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed, submits that the case of petitioner has been considered for promotion by the DPC having regard to the directions of this Court, inasmuch as the said directions were clear without any ambiguity that the case of petitioner be considered without reference to C.C. No.28 of 2023, the DPC has obliged, however, due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, his case was deferred for promotion keeping in view of G.O.Ms.No.424, dated 25.05.1976 r/w G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents either by conduct or action intended to violate and disobey the interim orders passed. It is his submission that the petitioner having very much aware of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, restricted his prayer in the writ petition to seek directions for consideration of his case for promotion only without reference to the on going criminal case but not the disciplinary proceedings, as there is neither any prayer nor specific direction contained in the order dated 07.05.2025 to consider the case of petitioner for promotion even without reference to the disciplinary proceedings, the very contempt case itself is not entertainable. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul and another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and others((2002) 5 SCC 352) to contend that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not permitted to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and tested in the judgment or order, and that if the judgment and order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein, then the parties be directed to approach the court which dispose the matter for clarification of the order instead of exercising contempt jurisdiction.

5. In order to appreciate the respective arguments advanced by both the learned counsels, it is necessary to analyze what exactly was the prayer made in the writ petition and also in the interlocutory application pending the writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition was coined on the premise that petitioner was not being considered for promotion due to pendency of C.C. No.28 of 2023. Therefore, I.A. No.1 of 2025 was filed for interim directions to consider the case of petitioner for promotion without reference to the pendency of criminal case. As in earlier round of litigation, though similar prayer was made, inasmuch petitioner fell short of two years of service in the feeder category, his case was not considered. Therefore, now, having completed aforesaid two years of service, he once again instituted the above writ petition.

6. This Court having considered the case in the above background, passed interim orders directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion without reference to the pending criminal case, subject to complying with the minimum required service of two years in the feeder category. The respondents having considered the case of petitioner for promotion in the DPC, though he was placed in the panel, promotion came to be deferred on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are separate and distinct and operate in different spheres. Though the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the present case are offshoot of the ACB enquiry and criminal case, both of them are governed by different set of procedures backed by statutory provisions. There is considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for respondent that the petitioner being well aware of pendency of disciplinary proceedings did not choose to make any specific prayer in the writ petition or IA inviting specific direction from the writ court.

7. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the Court is primarily concerned with enquiry whether contemnor is guilty of intentional and willful violation of the orders of the Court. Learned counsel for petitioner, though contended that the respondents have come up with a new reason or ground to deny the promotion in order to circumvent the compliance with interim order, it has to be seen whether the interim order passed has been complied with in true spirit or not. Merely because the petitioner has been denied promotion for any other possible and acceptable reason which did not form part of the directions cannot be inferred to say the respondents deliberately tried to circumvent the orders and deny the benefit. The judgments in E.T.Sunup’s and Maninderjit Singh Bitta’s cases, on which much reliance has been placed on by learned Senior Counsel, were rendered in particular set of facts therein and insofar as the observations that the orders of Court cannot be disobeyed and that the officers cannot circumvent the orders of Court and try to recourse one justification or other and that there should not be any delay in ensuring implementation of the Court orders and that officers of the State to act fairly, expeditiously and in accordance with the orders, the same equally apply to all contempt jurisdictions without any disagreement, however, each case has to be tested on its own facts.

8. In case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul and another, cited by learned counsel for respondent, the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the contours of contempt jurisdiction and held thus:

                  “11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction “that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute” in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts.”

9. Further, in Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, on which learned Senior Counsel placed reliance while explaining the difference between civil and criminal contempt has dealt with the contempt jurisdiction in the following passages:

                  “20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The government departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice.

                  21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re [(1995) 2 SCC 584] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 617, para 39)

                  “39. … judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform viz. to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. … dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.”

                  22. Another very important aspect even of the civil contempt is, “what is the attribution of the contemnor?” There may be cases of disobedience where the respondent commits acts and deeds leading to actual disobedience of the orders of the court. Such contemnor may flout the orders of the court openly, intentionally and with no respect for the rule of law. While in some other cases of civil contempt, disobedience is the consequence or inference of a dormant or passive behaviour on the part of the contemnor. Such would be the case where the contemnor does not take steps and just remains unmoved by the directions of the court. As such, even in cases where no positive/active role is directly attributable to a person, still, his passive and dormant attitude of inaction may result in violation of the orders of the court and may render him liable for an action of contempt.

                  23. It is not the offence of contempt which gets altered by a passive/negative or an active/positive behaviour of a contemnor but at best, it can be a relevant consideration for imposition of punishment, wherever the contemnor is found guilty of contempt of court.

                  24. With reference to government officers, this Court in E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Assn. [(2004) 8 SCC 683] took the view that it has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of the court by taking recourse to one justification or the other even if ex facie they are unsustainable. The tendency of undermining the court orders cannot be countenanced.

                  25. Deprecating the practice of undue delay in compliance with the orders of the Court, this Court again in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2001) 5 SCC 309] observed : (SCC p. 311, paras 8-9)

                  “… clear lapse on the part of NCT and Municipal Corporation. Even if there was no deliberate or wilful disregard for the court orders, there has clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and approach towards them. Though no further action in this matter need be taken for now, but such lethargic attitude if continues may soon become contumacious.”

                  26. It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non- obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1] , SCC p. 6, para 5). The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at large or public-spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority.

                  27. It is where the State and its instrumentalities have failed to discharge its statutory functions or have acted adversely to the larger public interest that the courts are called upon to interfere in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure maintenance of the rule of law. These are the cases which have impact in rem or on larger section of the society and not in personam simpliciter. Courts are called upon to exercise jurisdiction with twin objects in mind. Firstly, to punish the persons who have disobeyed or not carried out orders of the court i.e. for their past conduct. Secondly, to pass such orders, including imprisonment and use the contempt jurisdiction as a tool for compliance with its orders in future. This principle has been applied in the United States and Australia as well.

                  28. For execution of the orders of the court even committal for an indefinite term has been accepted under Australian law [Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v. Mudginberri Station (Pty) Ltd. [(1986) 161 CLR 98 (Aust)] ] and American law, though this is no longer permissible under English law. While referring to detention of a person for a long period to ensure execution of the orders in Nevitt, In re [117 F 448 (1902)], F at p.461, Sanborn, J. observed that the person subjected to such a term “carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket”.

                  29. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay in complying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep the execution of the court's orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even dormant behaviour by the officers in the highest echelons in the hierarchy of the Government in complying with the directions/orders of this Court certainly amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in complying with the orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations within the prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court. Reference in this regard can be made to Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of Police [1993 Supp (2) SCC 501 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1993 SC 356] and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [(2002) 4 SCC 21] . Even a lackadaisical attitude, which itself may not be deliberate or wilful, have not been held to be a sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure compliance with the orders of the court at the earliest and within stipulated period.”

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna(2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727), while reiterating the contempt jurisdiction has flagged the caution and circumspection in exercising the said jurisdiction. It is apt to refer to the following paragraphs of the said judgment:

                  “202. However, at the same time, the power of contempt ought to be exercised sparingly and with caution and care. It operates with a string of caution and unless otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the courts to resort to such powers. The standard of proof required before a person is held guilty of committing contempt of court must be beyond all reasonable doubt.

                  203. The courts while exercising its contempt jurisdiction must remain circumspect, more particularly, where there exists a possibility of the order being amenable to more than one interpretation. In Jhareshwar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly reported in (2002) 5 SCC 352 it was held that if an order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it would be appropriate to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for necessary clarification of the order instead of the court exercising its contempt jurisdiction thereby taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. The relevant observations read as under:—

                  “The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order… The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order.”

                  (Emphasis supplied)

11. Keeping in view the above exposition of law on the aspect of the contempt jurisdiction and reverting back to the facts of present case, as observed above, the petitioner has not specifically pleaded or prayed for consideration of his promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings. Resultantly, even the interim direction granted was confined only to consideration of his case for promotion without reference to criminal case and not the disciplinary proceedings.

12. As disciplinary proceedings are different facet which petitioner admittedly is facing and pendency of the same eclipses his entitlement for promotion in view of the embargo under G.O.Ms.424, dated 25.05.1976 r/w G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, it cannot be said that the respondents deliberately and in fraudulent violation of the orders, denied promotion by resorting to a new reason. This Court, in contempt jurisdiction, clearly will have to see whether the order against which contempt is instituted has been implemented in its true letter and spirit.

13. As seen from the memo dated 25.07.2025, it is very much clear that after passing of the interim order, the case of petitioner was placed before the DPC meeting held on 13.06.2025 and considering ACRs and other relevant records and material placed before it and after overall assessment of his service record, the respondents have taken a decision to include the name of petitioner in the panel, however, deferred the promotion until termination of disciplinary case.

14. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondents did act in compliance of the interim directions and that there is any deliberate or willful act of disobedience as alleged.

15. Accordingly, this Contempt Case stands dismissed. No costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed.