Allahabad High Court
PRAKASH SINGH, INSPECTORversusSUKIRTI MADHAV, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed as the respondent has substantially complied with the High Court's order and no willful defiance is established.
Summary
Inspector Prakash Singh filed a contempt application alleging that the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, willfully defied the Allahabad High Court's order dated 14 January 2026 which set aside his suspension and directed his reinstatement. The Superintendent issued a new order on 15 September 2026 reinstating Singh, ordering payment of full salary for the suspension period, and referring to an attachment order. Singh contended that he was also entitled to de‑attachment and consequential benefits. The Court examined whether the new order contravened the High Court's directive and whether the attachment issue could be raised in the contempt proceeding. Finding that the reinstatement and salary payment complied substantially with the writ order and that the attachment matter had not been raised before the writ court, the Court held that there was no willful defiance. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, leaving Singh to pursue his grievance through the appropriate authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the Superintendent's order dated 15 September 2026 amounts to willful defiance of the High Court's order dated 14 January 2026.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of consequential benefits and de‑attachment of the attachment order.
- Whether the contempt jurisdiction is appropriate in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 — s. Rule 17(1)(a)
Subjects
- contempt of court
- suspension of police officer
- reinstatement
- attachment order
- consequential benefits
- U.P. Police Rules
- writ petition compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5816 of 2026
Prakash Singh, Inspector
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sukirti Madhav, Superintendent Of Police
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adarsh Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 14.01.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 19670 of
2025, order whereof is quoted hereinunder:-
"1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Ambuj Maurya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Jitendra
Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Sri Jitendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel has made a statement at
bar that he is well equipped with the instructions and he is in a position to
argue the matter and he does not propose to file any affidavit. With the
consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of
Sub Inspector on 05.07.1995, however, while he was posted as Incharge
Inspector, Thana Ghunchai, District Pilibhit, he has been placed under
suspension in view of the provisions contained under Rule 17(1)(a) of the
U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 on 20.11.2025.
4. Questioning the suspension order, the present writ petition has been
preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the
impugned suspension order cannot be sustained for more than one reason
firstly, though in the suspension order, it has been recited that inquiry is
contemplated but while inviting attention towards page 27 of the paper
CAPL No. 5816 of 2026
2
book, a communication issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police,
Pilibhit on 22.11.2025 addressed to the writ petitioner, he has been called
within three days for preliminary inquiry and secondly, the entire
allegations are based upon news paper cuttings regarding cows slaughter
and negligence on the part of the writ petitioner in not taking step to
eliminate chances of the said incident. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of
Sachchidanand Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & others: Writ-A No. 69308 of
2013 decided on 17.12.2023.
6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the charges
are grave and serious, however, he could not dispute the fact that a
preliminary inquiry has been conducted first and it is after getting the
inputs, a decision is to be taken whether it is a case of suspension or not.
7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the
record.
8. Apparently, the writ petitioner happens to be a Sub Inspector, his
services are governed under the 1991 Rules. Plainly and simply,
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted first and after obtaining the inputs
a decision is to be taken whether it is a case of suspension or not. Here, in
the present case, it is apparent from the suspension order dated
21.11.2025 recites that the inquiry is contemplated whereas on the next
date i.e. 22.11.2025, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit had
required the presence of the writ petitioner for preliminary inquiry. In the
opinion of the Court, preliminary inquiry is to be conducted first and
after obtaining the inputs and being satisfied with the materials that there
happens to be a case of suspension then the suspension order is to be
passed. The said issue is no more res integra as the said issue is decided
in the case of Sachchidanand Tripathi (supra).
9. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The writ petition
is allowed. The suspension order dated 21.11.2025 passed by
Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit is set aside. Liberty is accorded to the
respondents to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a
period of two months."
2. This Court on 31.08.2026 sought instructions.
3. Today, instructions have been produced dated 20.09.2026 of the
CAPL No. 5816 of 2026
3
Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, annexing therewith the copy of the
order dated 15.09.2026, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
":: आदेश ::
निरीक्षक ना०पु० प्रकाश सिंह, पीएनओ-952511441 तत्काल प्रभारी निरीक्षक, थाना-घुंघचिहाई वर्तमान
तैनाती पुलिस लाइन पीलीभीत को इस कार्यालय के समसंख्यक आदेश दिनांकित: 21-11-2025 के द्वारा
आरोप " जनपद पीलीभीत से समाचार पत्रों 1. हिन्दुस्तान में दिनांक 17.11.2025 में प्रकाशित शीर्षक
घुंघचिहाई क्षेत्र में गोकशी की घटनाओं से लोगों में आक्रोश " 2. दैनिक जागरण में दिनांक 15.11.2025 में
प्रकाशित शीर्षक " तस्कर गोवंशीय पशु का वध कर मांस लेकर हुए फरार " जैसी घटनाओं में थाना घुंघचिहाई
क्षेत्र में अपराध नियंत्रण हेतु कोई सार्थक प्रयास न किये जाने, गौकशी की घटनाओं पर प्रभावी अंकुश न लगाये
जाने एवं अभियुक्तों के विरुद्ध प्रभावी विधिक कार्यवाही न किये जाने के संबंध में बरती गयी शिथिलता एवं
अपने पदीय दायित्वों का सही प्रकार से निर्वहन न किये जाने के संबंध में " निलम्बित किया गया था तथा
निरीक्षक प्रकाश सिंह के द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में रिट याचिका संख्या: 19670/2025
प्रकाश सिंह बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य योजित की गयी थी। माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 14.01.2026
को सुनवाई करते हुए इस कार्यालय के निलम्बन आदेश दिनांकित: 21.11.2025 को निरस्त किया गया था
जिसके अनुपालन में इस कार्यालय के समसंख्यक आदेश दिनांक 20-01-2026 के द्वारा इनके विरुद्ध
प्रचलित जांच/विभागीय कार्यवाही पर बिना प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले निलम्बन से बहाल किया गया था।
अतः उपरोक्त आदेश के आलोक में निरीक्षक ना०पु० प्रकाश सिंह, पीएनओ-952511441 को निलम्बन
अवधि दिनांक 21-11-2025 से दिनांक 20-01-2026 तक के पूर्ण वेतन/भत्ते प्रदान किये जाने के आदेश
पारित किये जाते हैं।
पत्रांक: न-176/2025
दिनांक: सितम्बर 15, 2026
पुलिस अधीक्षक
पीलीभीत
प्रतिलिपि:
1. प्रतिसार निरीक्षक, पुलिस लाइन पीलीभीत को 02 प्रतियों में इस निर्देश के साथ प्रेषित कि इसकी एक प्रति
संबधि
ं त कर्मी को वितरित कराकर द्वितीय प्रति पर प्राप्ति के दिनांक सहित हस्ताक्षर लेकर तामीला प्रति इस
कार्यालय को उपलब्ध कराना सुनिश्चित करें।
2. प्रतिसार निरीक्षक, पुलिस लाइन पीलीभीत को हि०आ०पु० में अंकन करने हेतु।
3. आंकिक, पीलीभीत को आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु।
4.
CAPL No. 5816 of 2026
4
चरित्र पंजिका लिपिक प्रथम को आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु।"
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the
applicant has been reinstated and post quashing of the suspension order,
he is entitled to payment of the consequential benefits. However,
according to him, the suspension order also encompasses itself with an
order of attachment and once the suspension order stood quashed then the
position which was available on the date prior to the passing of the
impugned order in the writ petition would stand restored. Thus, the
applicant is to be assigned work and the attachment order will go.
5. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant
whether before the writ Court any such argument was raised with regard
to the order relating to attachment, the answer is in negative.
6. Be that as it may, with regard to assignment of the work which existed
prior to the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition, it is always
open for the applicant to insist for de-attaching him.
7. Since there has been substantial compliance of the order of the writ
Court, the contempt application stands consigned to record, leaving it
open to the applicant to raise his grievance before the authority
concerned.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rajesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…