Mere Release Of Petition Which Was Reserved For Judgment Not Valid Ground For Violating Operational Interim Order: Supreme Court
A Professor of a Medical College approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his Contempt Application.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While allowing a Petition filed by a Professor of a Medical College, the Supreme Court has held that once an interim order was in operation and was being extended from time to time, the mere release of a petition which was reserved for judgment could not have constituted a valid ground for violating the interim order.
The appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Contempt Application filed by the appellant.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “It is evident that once an interim order was in operation from 20th December 2018 and was being extended from time to time, the mere release of the matter on 6th February 2019 could not have constituted a valid ground for violating the order dated 20th December 2018.”
Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate A N S Nadkarni represented the Respondnent.
Factual Background
The Appellant was working as a Professor in the Department of Pediatric Surgery of the King George’s Medical College, Lucknow (KGMU). In the year 2010, KGMU decided to employ a new software called the Central Patient Management System (CPMS) for the management of various aspects of the hospital administration and appointed the Appellant as the Nodal Officer for the implementation of the CPMS. An Audit Report was received and an objection was raised for irregularities in the expenditure on CPMS during 2011 – 2012, i.e., the time when the Appellant was in charge.
The Executive Council decided that the allegations regarding the audit objections be dropped. However, further investigation was directed for the complaints received through other sources. Being Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the preliminary enquiry report and the notice issued. The Single Judge (same judge who had reserved First Writ Petition No. 29638 of 2018), vide an interim order dated December 20, 2018, permitted the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, but directed that no final order shall be passed till the delivery of the judgment in the Writ Petition No. 29638 of 2018. On February 6, 2019, the Single Judge released the First Writ Petition, which had earlier been reserved for judgment and placed the same before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Before the judgment could be delivered, the disciplinary committee conducted a fact-finding exercise, and a questionnaire was sent to the Appellant. A chargesheet, was served upon the appellant. The appellant filed four petitions. During the pendency of these Petitions, the Appellant was found guilty of the charges and was terminated from service. Being aggrieved, a Contempt Application was filed by the Appellant before the High Court against the Respondents, alleging contempt of the orders of the High Court. The fifth Writ Petition was filed by the Appellant challenging the final enquiry report and the termination order. Ultimately, the contempt application, filed by the Appellant, was dismissed vide the Impugned Order.
Arguments
It was the appellant’s case that merely because a petition was released by the Court, it could not be presumed that the interim order dated December 20, 2018, had ceased to operate.
According to the Respondent, there were five proceedings filed by the Appellant and the Single Judge of the High Court, while dismissing the contempt petition, considered the pendency of those other proceedings, wherein the issues involved were similar to those raised in the present case.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that the mere release of the matter on 6th February 2019 could not have constituted a valid ground for violating the order dated December 20, 2018, which was interim in nature.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment. “The matter is remitted back to the High Court for considering the contempt petition afresh”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Prof. Ashish Wakhlu v. Prof. Soniya Nityanand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1290)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh, AOR Veera Kaul Singh, Advocates Ridhima Singh, Lakshita Handa, Rohan Chaudhary
Respondent: Senior Advocate A N S Nadkarni, AOR Anshuman Srivastava, Advocate Himanshu Saraswat