Repeated Passing Of Orders Deeply Disturbs Court’s Judicial Conscience: Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Single Bench’s Order In Contempt Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed an Appeal preferred against the Order passed by the Contempt Bench.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an Order of the Single Bench in a Contempt case, saying that its repeated passing of Orders deeply disturbs the judicial conscience of the Court.
The Court was dealing with an Appeal preferred against the Order as passed by the Contempt Bench by which the accused was found guilty of Contempt.
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma remarked, “… the instant case is not the only one where the contemnors have been led to institute appeals against the alike instant impugned order(s), rather the said are repeatedly made, despite the appeals arising thereagainst becoming decided in favour of the appellants, and, with trite underpinnings therein, thus anviled upon the supra expostulations of law, which rather well forbade the learned Contempt Bench concerned, from drawing contempt proceedings, unless adherence becomes made to the supra established procedure(s). Therefore, the said repeated passing of orders deeply disturbs the judicial conscience of this Court.”
The Bench emphasised that the edifice of the judiciary is erected upon the principle of propriety, besides upon the norm of constitutional decorum, as adherences thereto, thus preserves the exalted institution of the High Court. It added that the well preservations thereto do spur, through strict adherences being made vis-a-vis the norms, as thereby alone public faith and confidence in this exalted institution rather remains uneroded.
Addl. A.G. Ankur Mittal appeared for the Appellant while Advocate Ankur Sheoran appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Respondents who were appointed as Laboratory Technicians (Malaria) by way of direct recruitment, had instituted a Petition before the High Court with a prayer to direct the authorities concerned, to pay them the salaries from the date of their appointment, at par with the Laboratory Technicians, who became appointed by way of promotion, along with all arrears at the market rate interest. During the pendency of this Petition, another Petition filed by other recruited Lab Technicians (Malaria) was decided by the Court.
Thereafter, the former Petition of the Respondents was disposed of by the Court and since the Order remained purportedly uncomplied, the Respondents preferred a Petition before the Court seeking to initiate Contempt proceedings against the Contemnors concerned, on account of the Appellant wilfully disobeying the Order. It was alleged that even after passing of the Order, the Respondents did not comply with the Court’s directions. The Contempt Court (Single Bench) passed an Order, finding the Appellant guilty of Contempt for allegedly disobeying the Court’s Order. Being pained by such Order, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Division Bench.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… it is stated in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1974 that when proceedings qua commission of any purported civil contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, thus become launched, thereby the person charged is required to file an affidavit by way of reply to the charge.”
The Court observed that the successful trial of the formulated charge appertaining to the commission of any alleged civil contempt is to be made only after satisfaction becoming drawn by the Contempt Bench, that the person so charged but makes a feeble and weak plea in his reply on affidavit, rather for justifying the purported contumacy, as become allegedly committed by him.
“Resultantly thereby, since at the very threshold the learned Contempt Bench, even without framing a charge appertaining to the alleged commission of civil contempt, and, also subsequently without proceeding to consider the justifiable extenuating cause, as would become echoed in the reply on affidavit, whereby the contemnor may be amenable for being discharged, rather reiteratedly has proceeded to conclude that civil contempt has been committed”, it said.
The Court added that the Contempt Bench derogated from the established procedure in its recording a finding, that the Appellant indulged in contumacious conduct.
“… the supra breaches vis-a-vis the norms of propriety by the learned Contempt Bench concerned, as emanate(s) from despite earlier orders being passed by this Court, in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, thus whereby orders alike the present one, thus became quashed, yet repeatedly thus alike the earlier quashed orders, but orders rather becoming re-rendered, by the learned Single Bench of this Court. The said does not well augur for preserving either the norm of propriety nor the supra departures augur well qua the necessity of instilling faith and public confidence in the administration of justice”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the Single Bench’s Order, and discharged the Appellant.
Cause Title- Dr. Manish Bansal v. Subhash Chander Malik and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:002838-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Addl. A.G. Ankur Mittal, Sr. DAG Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG Saurabh Mago, Advocates Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, and Siddhant Arora.
Respondents: Advocates Ankur Sheoran and Samrat Malik.