V. Ramasubramanian, J. - (1.) This contempt petition stands posted before me on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court, after the two learned Judges constituting the Division Bench found themselves unable to agree with the conclusions reached by each other. By an order dated 16- 6-2017, the Division Bench has referred the following points for determination by a 3rd Judge, in terms of Clause 36 of the Letters Patent: i) Whether the second respondent is guilty of willful and deliberate disobedience to the order dated 22-12-2015 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.53654 of 2015 in W.P.No.41555 of 2015 in terms of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? and ii) Whether the disposal of W.P.No.41555 of 2015 by a final order dated 24-6-2016 recording that miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous would have any impact upon the interim order dated 22-12-2015 in relation to which these contempt proceedings were initiated?
(2.) I have heard Mr. T.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(3.) A brief background of facts may be necessary for answering the points referred to me for an opinion. They are as follows: (i) The petitioner who was working as a Sub Divisional Police Officer was served with two orders, both dated 07-10-2014, transferring him to a different place and placing him under suspension. (ii) The petitioner challenged the order of suspension before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6108 of 2014. While ordering notice in the application, the Tribunal granted an interim stay of the order of suspension. (iii) When the State filed an application for vacating the interim order and the petitioner filed a contempt application alleging wilful disobedience of the order of interim stay, the Tribunal thought fit to take up the original application itself for disposal. Accordingly, by an order dated 01-10-2015, the Tribunal disposed of the said application merely with a direction to the respondents to review the suspension of the applicant and to pass appropriate orders for his reinstatement within six weeks. (iv) Not satisfied with the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.41555 of 2015 on the file of this Court, challenging merely the order of the Tribunal. But along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application seeking an interim suspension not only of the order of the Tribunal but also of the order of suspension and further seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service. (v) While ordering notice in the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed an ex parte interim order on 22-12-2015 to the following effect: Interim suspension as prayer for. (vi) Contending that the interim order passed on 22-12-2015 was not obeyed, the petitioner filed the above contempt petition in C.C.No.150 of 2016. The contempt petition appears to have been filed on 25-01-2016 as seen from the rubber stamp on the docket sheet. (vii) The State came up with a petition for vacation of the interim order in W.V.M.P.No.452 of 2016. It appears that the vacate stay petition was filed on 08-02-2016. (viii) Though an endeavour is said to have been made, to have the stay petition, the vacate stay petition as well as the contempt petition heard together, it was not successful. Therefore, the writ petition, the stay petition and the vacate stay petition proceeded on one track and the contempt petition proceeded on a different track. (ix) Eventually, the main writ petition itself was disposed of by a final order dated 24-6-2016, on the basis of the submission made by the learned Advocate General that the suspension of the petitioner will be revoked, on the understanding that the petitioner will participate in the enquiry. (x) Pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition on 24-6-2016 in the manner as aforesaid, on the basis of a consensus reached between the parties, the petitioner was also reinstated on 27-6-2016. (xi) Nevertheless, the above contempt was pursued by the petitioner on the ground that the ex parte interim order granted 22.12.2015 was not obeyed and the pay and allowances for the period from 22-12-2015 till the date of reinstatement, namely, 27-6-2016 were not paid. (xii) The above contempt petition was heard by two Honble Judges, one of whom namely Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao was actually a party to the ex parte interim order passed on 22-12-2015. (xiii) While the Senior Judge constituting the Bench, who was not a party to the ex parte interim order which led to the above contempt case, held the 2nd respondent guilty of contumacious conduct, Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao who was a party to the ex parte interim order held the respondents not guilty of contempt. In view of such divergence of opinion, the matter has been referred to me under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, on the questions which I have extracted earlier.;