A court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot expand the scope of its original order; it must confine itself to determining willful disobedience of the specific directions given. Disobedience for a separate reason not covered by the order does not constitute contempt.

Headnote:
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(b) and 10 - Civil contempt - Willful disobedience - Scope of contempt jurisdiction - Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with whether contemnor is guilty of intentional and willful violation of court orders - Contempt jurisdiction is not to be used to decide questions not dealt with in the original order - If order is ambiguous, parties should approach the court that passed it for clarification, not the contempt court - Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are separate and distinct, operating in different spheres. (Paras 7, 8, 12)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 215 - Power of High Court to punish for contempt - Power is special and must be exercised sparingly, with care and caution, and only when satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate disobedience. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to punish the respondents for alleged willful violation of interim orders dated 07.05.2025 passed in W.P. No.12592 of 2025. The interim direction was to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary without reference to a pending criminal case (C.C. No.28 of 2023). The respondents considered the case in a DPC meeting, recommended the petitioner for inclusion in the panel, but deferred the promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings, citing G.O.Ms.No.424 and G.O.Ms.No.257. The petitioner argued this was a deliberate circumvention of the court order, while the respondents contended the order did not require them to ignore the disciplinary proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found no willful disobedience. The interim order specifically directed consideration without reference to the criminal case only, not the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents complied by considering the case and recommending promotion, but the deferment was due to separate disciplinary proceedings, which was a valid reason not covered by the order. The contempt case was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the respondents' action of deferring promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings, after considering the petitioner's case for promotion without reference to the criminal case, constitutes willful disobedience of the court's interim order.

Ratio Decidendi: The contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining whether there has been deliberate disobedience of the specific directions in the order. The order must be interpreted strictly; if it does not cover a particular matter (here, disciplinary proceedings), the court cannot expand its scope in contempt proceedings. Disobedience of an order for a reason not covered by the order does not constitute contempt. (Paras 7, 8, 12)

Result: Contempt case dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks contempt for alleged willful violation of interim promotion order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner argues respondents deliberately denied promotion under guise of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 3)
3. respondents defend that promotion deferred due to pending disciplinary proceedings, not criminal case. (Para 4)
4. court analyses scope of interim order limited to criminal case, not disciplinary proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
5. contempt jurisdiction requires deliberate disobedience; cannot adjudicate matters not in original order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. respondents complied with interim order; disciplinary proceedings separate, justifying deferment of promotion. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
7. no willful disobedience found; contempt case dismissed. (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER:

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 ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18286

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHCHALLA GUNARANJANSALAGALA ERIMIYA RAJU – AppellantVersusMUKESH KUMAR MEENA IAS – RespondentCC 1951/2025

A court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot expand the scope of its original order; it must confine itself to determining willful disobedience of the specific directions given. Disobedience for a separate reason not covered by the order does not constitute contempt.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHALLA GUNARANJAN
SALAGALA ERIMIYA RAJU – Appellant
Versus
MUKESH KUMAR MEENA IAS – Respondent
CC 1951/2025