Failure to comply with court orders constitutes civil contempt, and an apology offered belatedly may not suffice for exoneration.

1. This is an application by the petitioner to punish the respondent for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 5887/85 in W. P. No. 4141/85 dated 23-5-1985.

2. The following facts have to be stated, for a proper appreciation of the points arising in the case.

3. The petitioner is a Junior Accountant in the Sub-Treasury at Rajampet, Siddavatam Taluk, Cuddapah District. On certain allegations including falsification of accounts and misappropriation, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 7-2-1983 by orders issued by the respondent, who is the District Treasury Officer, Cuddapah. In the order of suspension dated 7-2-1983, however, no reasons were mentioned. The petitioner requested on 10-8-1983 that a charge memo may be issued to him and accordingly on 12-9-83 a charge memo was issued framing four charges. Subsequently the petitioner states that he has filed applications on 17-9-1983, 7-10-1983, 21-10-1983 and 26-11-1983 for furnishing him copies of various documents for the purpose of filing his explanation. According to him, copies of documents required by him were not furnished. The petitioner was also not paid subsistence allowance initially and, therefore, on 20-4-1983 he requested for payment of subsistence allowance. The original suspension period expired on 8-8-1983 and thereafter a further order was passed on 26-10-1983 keeping the petitioner under suspension with retrospective effect from 8-8-1983. On 20-1-1984 the petitioner is again said to have requested for copies of documents for filing his explanation. On 10-2-1984 the suspension was again extended with retrospective effect from 8-2-1984 for another period of six months. The petitioner is said to have further filed applications on 20-3-1984 and 23-4-1984 for furnishing documents. According to the petitioner, for the various letters written by him there was not a single reply from the respondent. Ultimately the petitioner states he requested by petitions dated 22-5-1984,6-6-1984 and 26-7-1984 that he may be reinstated as the respondent was not going ahead with the enquiry or furnishing the requisite documents. At that stage, the extended period of suspension came to an end on 7-8-1984. The petitioner then moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in R. P. No. 420 of 1984. The same was admitted on 27-9-1984 and was disposed of on 23-1-1985 stating that if the enquiry was not completed within a period of two months or if police have not filed a charge - sheet within two months, the petitioner shall be reinstated.

4. After the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner gave a representation on 24-1-1985 for being reinstated. It is now represented by the learned Government pleader before me appearing for the respondent that the police filed a case against the petitioner within the said period on 21-3-1985, but the petitioner came to know about it long thereafter. On 4-4-1984 a further order was passed extending suspension till the completion of the disciplinary enquiry.

5. It was at this juncture the petitioner filed WP No. 4141 of 1985. The same was admitted on 26-4-1985 and initially notice was ordered in W.P.M.P. No. 5887 of 1985. On 23-5-1985 the petitioner got the above W.P.M.P. posted before me in the vacation court and I passed an order. The operative portion of which reads as follows : -
"The petitioner has been under suspension from 7-2-1983. Having regard to the above facts, I direct that in the event of final orders not being passed within one week from today,