IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Casual Approach of Government Officials in Complying With Court Orders Is Not Only Derogatory to the Constitution But Also Shameful to Their Official Position and Dignity", Andhra Pradesh High Court on March 17, 2026 allowed contempt appeals filed by a District Collector and a Revenue Divisional Officer, setting aside the fine imposed upon them by the Single Judge for delay in complying with a writ court direction.

A Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice Subhendu Samanta accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants but issued a stricture against their conduct, making clear that senior government officials cannot take a casual approach to compliance with orders of Constitutional Courts.

A retired employee had filed a writ petition seeking directions for consideration of his representations for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits. By order dated October 18, 2022, the writ court directed respondents 2 and 3 — the District Collector, Kurnool and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal — to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representations within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The order was received on November 9, 2022, making the compliance deadline December 8, 2022. The officials failed to comply. Even after a legal notice was sent by the petitioner, it was only on February 24, 2023 that the first respondent addressed a letter to the second respondent. Worse, during the pendency of the contempt case itself, the respondents rejected the petitioner's representation by order dated April 19, 2023. The Single Judge convicted the contemnors and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- each, with a default sentence of one week's simple imprisonment. The officials appealed.

Court's Observations on Contempt Proceedings

The Division Bench laid down a clear framework for what a court dealing with a contempt case can and cannot examine. The Court held that a contempt court can only verify whether the order was properly communicated, when it was communicated, whether the contemnor was in a position to understand and comply with the directions, whether the contemnor acted diligently within his authority to comply in true letter and spirit, and whether there was wilful laches and disobedience.

The Court was equally clear on what a contempt court cannot do.

"Following points cannot be determined in a contempt case: jurisdiction of the court who passed the direction; merit of the matter in which the direction was passed; merit of the direction; question as to whether the direction can be capable of being complied; and other points which can be determined only by the Appellate Court."

On the scope of a contempt appeal, the Court held that an appellate court can only verify the correctness of those points determinable by the court passing the punishment order, whether the order is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and the correctness of the extent and quantum of punishment and whether it is commensurate to the alleged disobedience.

Four Months' Delay: Compliance Not in True Letter and Spirit

The Court found that the order was not complied with within the stipulated period of four weeks and that the actual compliance came only after a delay of four months. Further, even that compliance was not in the true letter and spirit of the writ court's direction — the representation of the petitioner was rejected mid-way through the contempt proceedings, not properly considered as directed.

However, noting that unconditional apology had been tendered by the appellants, the Court accepted it — though not without recording its strong displeasure.

"Casual approach of Government Officials in complying with directions of Constitutional Courts is not only derogatory towards the Constitution of India, but also shameful to their official position and dignity. The appellants, being senior officials of the Government, should be more careful in future in complying with orders of the Court in its true letter and spirit."

The Division Bench allowed both contempt appeals and set aside the punishment of fine imposed by the Single Judge, accepting the unconditional apology with a stricture. The ruling, while providing relief to the officials, sends a firm message that senior government functionaries are expected to comply with court orders promptly and in substance — and that tendering an apology at the appellate stage, while it may save them from punishment, will not spare them from judicial censure.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2026