ORDER :

The above contempt case is filed complaining violation of interim order dated 12.08.2024 in W.P.No.17654 of 2024.

2. The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition impugning the proceedings vide Lr.No.EE/O/JPT/CASH/JAO/JA1/ D.No.154/2024 dated 25.07.2024, issued by the Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Jaggampeta Division and consequential proceedings dated 30.07.2024 issued by the 6^th respondent removing the petitioner from the services as Shift Operator, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. An ad interim order was passed on 12.08.2024 suspending the proceedings dated 25.07.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent.

4. The petitioner was engaged as a shift operator in Irripaka Sub- station, Jaggampeta Section of APEPDCL on 10.01.2021 through Abhinaya Enterprises on contract basis initially. Though the petitioner was engaged through Abhinaya Enterprises, an outsourcing agency, after the expiry of the contract period, another agency, Kranthi Constructions, the 6^th respondent in the writ petition and the 3^rd respondent in the contempt case, continued the petitioner as a Shift Operator. There is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and APEPDCL.

5. Be that as it may, the Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Jaggampeta Division, addressed a letter to the Contractor pointing out the negligent attitude of the petitioner in discharging duties, resulted in the removal of the petitioner by a separate proceeding. By interim order, this Court suspended the communication of the Executive Engineer to the outsourcing agency. No specific direction was given by this Court directing the outsourcing agency to re-engage the petitioner.

6. The contempt case was filed in February, 2025. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 28.03.2025.

7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It was contended, inter alia, that the contract period of the 3^rd respondent-outsourcing agency was completed on 31.12.2024 and the contract was issued to M/s Power Solutions on 01.01.2025. The appointment of the petitioner is not in the hands of respondents 1 and 2. The contractor is the final authority either for the appointment or removal of the Shift Operator.

8. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Sata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, despite the interim order, the respondents 1 and 2 failed to engage the petitioner as a shift operator. He would further submit that, though the writ petition was dismissed on 02.03.2026, the respondents are liable for punishment for non-compliance with the interim order.

10. Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order by the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner is not the employee of the respondents 1 and 2 and he was engage by the outsourcing agency, which is responsible for engaging or disengaging the petitioner from the service.

11. Now, the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the act of respondents 1 and 2 in not adhering to the interim order dated 12.08.2024, would amount to contemptuous act?

2) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 acted willfully and deliberately and flouted the interim order dated 12.08.2024?

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj [(2014) 16 SCC 204 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 311 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 42] consider the aspect of willful disobedience / contumacious conduct and observed thus:

“11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt juri