ORDER :

1. This Contempt Case has been initiated against the respondents suo motu.

2. While dealing with C.C.No.1197 of 2020 in W.P.No.14579 of 2019 on 16.07.2021, this Court passed the following order:

“1. This Court ordered notice in Form-I to the respondents on 01.04.2021 and directed to post this matter on 29.04.2021. In view of the sudden spike of COVID-19, this Court dispensed with the appearance of the respondents on 29.04.2021 and posted the matter on 18.06.2021. On 18.06.2021, the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 are present before this Court, but the 3rd respondent did not appear.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the reason for non-appearance of the 3rd respondent is that, it is mentioned in Form-I notice issued to the 3rd respondent as extracted hereunder:

“It is further informed that, in the event of implementing the order of this Court, the 3rd respondent need not appear before this Court.”

3. In the opinion of the Court, incorporating the above sentence in the standard format of Form-I notice prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act is nothing but interfering into the administration of justice and obstructing the constitutional functions of the Court.”

3. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh was directed to enquire into the matter and submit report. Accordingly, on 24.06.2021, the Registrar (Judicial) submitted report. As per his report, one Sri M. Shankar Reddy, A.S.O., Special Cell who drafted Form-I Notice and Sri P. Venkataramana, Deputy Registrar, who approved Form-I Notice, are responsible for issuing such notice contrary to the order of the Court. Accordingly, the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was directed to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, the suo motu contempt case was initiated.

4. After hearing the learned Advocate General, notices are issued to the respondents on 30.07.2021.

5. The respondents filed their counter affidavits.

6. The Respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit averred that, due to acute shortage of manpower in the High Court, he was assigned the duties of drafter/typist, though he lacked touch type skills and since it is their collective responsibility to see that, by one way or the other the task is completed so that no scope is left where the Hon’ble Judges or the respected Advocates feel any sort of inconvenience across the Bench where they strive to achieve justice to the General Public at large i.e. due to delay on their part. He submitted that, he has opted for cut and copy working style i.e. from the earlier drafted orders and unfortunately, two irrelevant lines in the Form-I Notice were not been deleted by him and due to the mistake committed by him, the Court had to undergo an embarrassment situation in which he expressed deep regret. He assured to enhance his efforts and to be more careful and vigilant in future while discharging his duties. Finally, he requested to consider their pathetic working conditions and exonerate him in the contempt case.

7. The Respondent No.2 did not choose to file his counter affidavit. On 18.07.2022, he filed a memo of unconditional apology. In the said memo, it is stated that, originally he was working as Assistant Registrar of the High Court with effect from 01.01.2019 onwards. He is the Controlling Officer for Computer Section of the High Court and he is looking after the computer related works in respect of the High Court and Subordinate Courts in the State, including the e-Courts project. He was promoted as Deputy Registrar on 10.12.2020 and assigned the same duties as above as in-charge of the Computer Section. He further submitted that, there is no Section Officer, required staff members for Computer Section and a heavy burden lay on him as the Controlling Officer in attending all tasks.

8. During Covid-19 pandemic period, from 10:00 AM onwards till 4:30 PM on each during, during Court hours, his entire attenti