Allahabad High Court

PROF. ASHISH WAKHLUversusPROF. M L BHATT VICE CHANCELLOR K.G.M.C. LUCKNOW and ORS.

Decided: 5 October 2026
Disposal: Dismissed on merits/Rejected
Bench: PANKAJ BHATIA

Holding

No civil contempt is made out against the respondents; the contempt court lacked jurisdiction to issue notices without a prima‑facie satisfaction of contempt.

Summary

Prof. Ashish Wakhlu filed a contempt application alleging that the Vice‑Chancellor and members of the Executive Council of King George’s Medical University (KGMU) violated interim orders dated 20‑12‑2018 and 05‑12‑2019 by suspending and dismissing him. The High Court examined whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed those orders, whether the contempt court had jurisdiction to issue notices without a prima‑facie finding of contempt, and whether the impleadment of additional university officials was proper. Relying on the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Allahabad High Court Rules and several precedents, the Court held that no prima‑facie case of civil contempt existed and that the contempt court had erred in issuing notices without satisfying the procedural requirements. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed. The matter was remitted to the writ court for further hearing of the pending writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by wilful disobedience of the interim orders dated 20‑12‑2018 and 05‑12‑2019.
Whether the contempt court had jurisdiction to issue notice and implead parties without a prima‑facie finding of contempt as required by Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV‑E of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
Whether the suspension and subsequent dismissal of the petitioner were arbitrary and violative of the university statutes and the Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether the impleadment of additional university officials as alleged contemnors was procedurally valid.

Legislation cited

Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 — s. Chapter VIII Rule 5, Chapter XXXV‑E Rule 1, Chapter XXXV‑E Rule 5
Constitution of India — s. Article 215
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 2(a), 2(b), 5
KGMU Act, 2002
KGMU First Statute, 2011 — s. 11.06, 11.11

Subjects

civil contempt
contempt of court
university disciplinary proceedings
suspension order
jurisdiction
impleadment
inherent powers of High Court
procedural fairness
Contempt of Courts Act 1971
Allahabad High Court Rules

Judgment

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65745

Reserved on: 06.08.2024

Pronounced on: 23.09.2024

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 936 of 2020

Applicant :- Prof. Ashish Wakhlu
Opposite Party :- Prof. M L Bhatt Vice Chancellor K.G.M.C. Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Aakash Prasad,Abhishek Dwivedi,Amitav Singh,Dr.
V.K. Singh,Sandeep Kumar Ojha,Shubham Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhinav Trivedi,Lalta Prasad Misra,Shubham
Tripathi

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Sandeep Kumar Ojha, learned for the applicant and Dr. L.P. Misra
assisted by Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.

2. The instant contempt application is filed arraying nine respondents
with a prayer that the order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 35784 of 2018 and order dated 05.12.2019 passed in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 33626 of 2019 are violated by them, therefore, they
may be summoned and punished under the provisions of Contempt of
Courts Act.

The order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of
2018 is as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is challenging the enquiry report and the constitution of
the disciplinary proceeding in Writ Petition No.29638 (S/S) of 2018,
in which judgment has been reserved on 16.11.2018, which is under
dictation.

On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondents have proceeded to
conclude the disciplinary proceeding.

In view of the above, prima facie case has been made out for the grant
of interim order.

Respondents are permitted to conclude the disciplinary proceeding,
but no final order shall be passed till the delivery of the judgment in
the aforesaid writ petition."

The order dated 05.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 33626 of
2019 is as under:-
"Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhinav N.
Trivedi who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 3 to
7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of
opposite party no. 1 while Sri Deep Chatterjee holding brief of Sri
Samir Kalia, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent no. 2.

This writ petition is directed against the order of suspension passed by
the Vice Chancellor much after the date of issuance of charge sheet.

This Court is conscious of the fact that as many as three writ petitions
filed by the petitioner are already pending before this Court. The
pending writ petitions are directed against the actions for which a
cause of action arose at different stages. The first writ petition i.e.
Writ Petition No. 2963 (SS) of 2018 was even heard and judgement
reserved but the same could not be pronounced and has been
released. In yet another Writ Petition No. 3578 (SS) of 2018, this
court has permitted the disciplinary proceedings to go on but taking
of final decision has been stayed. The third writ petition i.e. Writ
Petition No. 18642 (SS) of 2019 is directed against the charge sheet
and the same continues to be pending.

In order to deal with the issue at hand, it is apt to refer to the relevant
provisions of First Statutes of the University. Suspension is regulated
under statute 11.06 which for ready reference is extracted below:

"11.06 (1) A teacher shall be suspended on the charges of misconduct,
or being "Unbecoming" of a teacher pending an enquiry and the
action to be taken as per the laid down procedure.

(2) The period of suspension shall continue until such time that action
is taken against him through the laid down procedure either to punish
or exonerate him.

(3) The suspension is not a punishment.

(4) A teacher on being found guilty can be given punishment
commensurate to the charges levelled against him. It shall include
withholding of salary increment for a varied period, withholding his
promotion, his demotion, compulsory retirement and termination from

The action of suspension proceeds on the recommendations of the
Disciplinary Committee as is provided under statute 11.11 of which
the relevant part is extracted hereunder:

"DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

11.11.(1) ..................

(2) ..................

(3) ..................

(4) The function of the Disciplinary Committee shall be as follows:
(i) to decide any appeal preferred by an employee of the University.

(ii) to hold enquiry into case involving disciplinary action against a
teacher or the librarian of the University.

(iii) to recommend suspension of any employee referred to in sub-
clause (ii) above pending or in contemplation of enquiry against such
employee.

(iv) to exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as
may, from time to time, be entrusted to it by the Executive Council.

(5) ..................................."

It is clear that the disciplinary committee shall make a
recommendation for placing a teacher under suspension keeping in
mind the ingredients of statute 11.06.

In the present case, it appears that a recommendation in sealed cover
was forwarded by the Disciplinary Committee both on account of
misconduct and non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner in the
disciplinary proceedings. The recommendation so made came up for
consideration before the Executive Council which has passed a
resolution on 19.10.2019 approving for placing the petitioner under
suspension simply on account of his non cooperating with the enquiry.
The resolution passed as contained in Annexure-38 to the writ petition
gives a clear indication that it was non-cooperation on the part of the
petitioner in the enquiry which has weighed for his placing under
suspension.

The petitioner undisputedly is a Professor in the University. The
duties attached to the post of a Professor are less in the nature of
administrative duties but are largely educational. The twin functions
which the petitioner is under an obligation to discharge are
significant but the educational function is essential. The purpose of
suspension has to take into consideration the dimension of
educational role of a teacher. Charge sheet has already been issued.
There does not appear to be any good reason for placing the
petitioner under suspension, inasmuch as, no administrative functions
are essentially attached to the working of a teacher. Even if there are
any administrative functions attached, the same could be taken away
but not the essential duties. The purpose of education has not to suffer.
This dimension cannot be turned a blind eye while placing a teacher
under suspension.

This Court would also notice that after issuance of the charge sheet
on 14.6.2019, there has hardly been any progress in the disciplinary
proceedings except fixation of two dates.
It is submitted by the petitioner that he had duly participated in the
enquiry and asking for documents or making prayer for affording
reasonable opportunity cannot be taken to be non-cooperation on his
part.

This Court would notice that the allegation of financial embezzlement
surfaced on the basis of an audit objection which has been dropped
and what is pursued by the University is a complaint lodged by a
private person i.e. one Dr. O.P. Prakash in relation whereto the
preliminary report according to the petitioner was never submitted.

This Court would expect that the disciplinary proceedings in the case
at hand shall progress fairly and the petitioner may participate and
cooperate in the same. Taking non-cooperation of the petitioner to be
an unbecoming act warranting suspension, in my humble view, is
arbitrary.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the submissions
put forth by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order of suspension dated
19.10.2019 being, prima facie, unwarranted, is liable to be stayed.
The petitioner shall, however, participate in the enquiry which is
permitted to be conducted in terms of the order already passed in Writ
Petition No. 3578 (SS) of 2018.
Until further orders of the Court, the impugned order of suspension
contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is stayed.

It is, however, made clear that any observation made in this order
shall not have any bearing upon the enquiry proceedings.

Respondents pray for and are granted a week's time to file counter
affidavit.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within next one week.

List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was
appointed as Assistant Professor in Department of Paediatrics Surgery
in King George, Medical University, Lucknow. In terms of audit
objection dated 29.08.2017, three members committee was constituted
to enquire into the matter, hence, inquiry report was submitted on
25.09.2017. Thereafter, on 13.10.2017, six members Inquiry
Committee was also constituted by Executive Council to enquire into
the matter and to submit its report within a period of three months. On
02.08.2018, the Constitution of Inquiry Committee was communicated
to all members of the Committee including the applicant vide notice
dated 24.09.2018. On 04.10.2018, the Committee resolved for
conducting a pre-inquiry (fact finding) before proceeding for formal
regular inquiry and a questionnaire was prepared and communicated
to petitioner directing him to submit his reply. In the meantime, the
applicant preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018 challenging
preliminary inquiry report and notice of constitution of Disciplinary
Committee dated 24.09.2018, in the said petition, judgement was
reserved on 16.11.2018, but subsequently, it was released on
06.02.2019.

4. The orders dated 16.11.2018 and 06.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 29638 of 2018 are as under:-

The order dated 16.11.2018:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K.Singh, Sri Sameer
Kalia and Sri Abhinav Narain Trivedi for respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4.

Judgment reserved."

The order dated 06.02.2019:

"The case is released and be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice /
Hon'ble the Senior Judge for nomination of appropriate Bench."

5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant was that the
applicant assailed the questionnaire dated 04.10.2018 prepared by
Disciplinary Committee for conducting the pre-inquiry in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018 on 20.12.2018. A Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 29638 of 2018 was also filed challenging preliminary inquiry and
constitution of Disciplinary Proceeding Committee, in which, order
was reserved by the writ Court on 16.11.2018 directing conclusion of
disciplinary proceeding but restrain from passing any final order till
the delivery of the judgement in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of
2018.

It has further been submitted that inquiry was proceeded by issuing
notice to the applicant on 29.01.2019. Then, the applicant preferred a
representation, but Disciplinary Committee resolved to formulate
formal charge-sheet against the applicant. Thereafter, inquiry was
proceeded by preparing the charge-sheet approved by Executive
Council on 25.05.2019.

It has also been submitted that a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 18642 of 2019 was filed on 05.07.2019 by the applicant before
this Court challenging the charge-sheet and the said writ petition was
pending for consideration. At the same time, the applicant was placed
under suspension vide order dated 19.10.2019, the said order was
challenged in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 33626 of 2019, in which,
suspension order was stayed by the writ Court on 05.12.2019 with the
observation that the petitioner should, however, participate in the
inquiry.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant was that the
aforesaid stay order of suspension dated 05.12.2019 was challenged
by K.G.M.U. in a Special Appeal No. 29 of 2020 which was disposed
of on 21.01.2020 with the observations for listing all the writ petitions
of the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018, Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 18642 of
2019, and Writ Petition (S/S) No. 33626 of 2019 before the writ Court
for analogous hearing; it was further observed in the said order that
pleadings be exchanged between the parties within four weeks; it was
next observed that the counsel for the parties to make a joint prayer
before the writ Court to decide the aforesaid petitions, as early as
possible, might be decided within a period of three months; till then,
the interim order passed by the writ Court regarding suspension order
should remain in operation; in case the incumbent would not
cooperate and tried to linger on the matter, the university would be at
liberty to file an application for modification/vacation of interim order.

7. The order dated 21.01.2020 passed in Special Appeal No. 29 of
2020 is as under:-

"(1) Vakalatnama filed by Sri Aakash Prasad, Advocate on behalf of
respondent No.1 is taken on record.

(2) Heard Dr. L. P. Mishra and Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants, Sri J. N.
Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dr. V. K. Singh and
Sri Aakash Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Manish
Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Samir
Kalia, learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

(3) At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised
an objection that under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952, Special Appeal against the interlocutory order dated
5.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 33626 (SS) of 2019 is barred
therefore it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the
aforesaid ground alone.

(4) Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per main
relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner (respondent No.1
herein) is praying for quashing of the suspension order dated
19.10.2019 and the same has been stayed by the impugned order,
which has a bearing on the final adjudication of the case, therefore,
the order impugned is not an interlocutory order and as such, the
Special Appeal would lie. Therefore, the objection deserves to be
rejected.

(5) It is well settled that the aforesaid provision bars appeals against
those interim orders, which are totally interlocutory in nature, do not
decide matters of moment and do not have an element of finality
attached to them. Conversely, if the order vitally affects rights of the
parties having bearing on the final adjudication of the case, then even
though the order is interim, it cannot be termed as an interlocutory
order and the appeal would lie. An appeal would also lie against
those orders which cannot be undone at the time of final hearing and
which have an element of finality attached to them.

(6) This Special Appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order
dated 5.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition no. 33626 (SS) of 2019, Prof.
Ashish Wakhlu v. State of U.P. and others, by which learned Writ
Court stayed the suspension order dated 19.10.2019 on the ground of
arbitrary as the same was passed taking non-cooperation of the
petitioner/respondent No.1 to be an unbecoming act warranting
suspension and directed him to participate in the inquiry which is
permitted to be conducted in terms of order already passed in Writ
Petition No. 3578 (SS) of 2018. The impugned order having bearing
on a final adjudication of the case, the present appeal is maintainable.
(7) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as
Assistant Professor and is presently working as Professor in the
department of Paediatrics Surgery of appellant No.1/King George's
Medical University, Lucknow.

(8) In terms of the Audit objection dated 29.8.2017, a 3-member
committee was constituted for enquiring into the matter, who
submitted its report recommending for taking necessary action
against respondent No.1 on 25.9.2017. Thereafter, on 13.10.2017, the
Executive Council constituted 6-member Disciplinary Committee in
terms of Statute 11.11 of KGMU to enquire into the matter as also the
report of preliminary Fact Finding Enquiry Committee and to submit
its report within a period of three months.

(9) On 2.8.2018, the Executive Council resolved that allegations
regarding the audit objections be dropped but the other complaints
received through office of Chancellor as well as other sources have
significant ground for further investigation. Further, it was resolved
that the Disciplinary Committee constituted in the meeting of
Executive Council dated 13.10.2017 and 2.6.2018 will remain in force
to investigate the matter. The constitution of Disciplinary Committee
was communicated to all Members of the Committee including
respondent No.1/Dr. Ashish Wakhlu vide notice dated 24.9.2018.

(10) Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 initially filed Writ Petition
No.29638 (SS) of 2018 challenging the preliminary Enquiry Report
and the notice of Constitution of Disciplinary Committee dated
24.9.2018, wherein judgment was reserved on 16.11.2018, but
subsequently, it was released on 6.2.2019 and at present, the matter is
pending.

(11) In the meantime, on 4.10.2018, the Disciplinary Committee
resolved for conducting a pre-enquiry (Fact Finding) before starting
formal Disciplinary Committee. Consequently, a questionnaire was
prepared requiring the respondent No.1/petitioner, Mr. Vikrant Kumar
and Finance Officer of the KGMU to submit their replies.

(12) Respondent No.1 assailed the said questionnaire by filing second
Writ Petition no. 35784 (SS) of 2018 on 20.12.2018, learned Writ
Court, taking note of the fact that the judgment in Writ Petition No.
29638 (SS) of 2018 challenging the enquiry report and the
constitution of Disciplinary proceedings has been reserved on
16.11.2018, directed for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings but
restrained from passing any final order.

(13) According to the appellants, Writ Petition No. 35784 (SS) of 2018
filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner has lost its efficacy for two
reasons that respondent No.1/appellant never filed any reply to the
questionnaire dated 1/13.12.2018 and the questionnaire was never
acted upon by the Disciplinary Committee who eventually proceeded
to hold a fullfledged formal disciplinary proceedings.

(14) On 29.1.2019, respondent No.1 was informed about the date,
time and place of meeting of Disciplinary Committee to be held on
30.1.2019. Though respondent No.1 never appeared before the
Disciplinary Committee, but he preferred a representation on
20.1.2019. On 30.1.2019, the Disciplinary Committee resolved to
formulate formal chargesheet and thereafter, the next date of meeting
of Disciplinary Committee be fixed.

(15) Thereafter, vide notice dated 25.4.2019, respondent No.1 was
informed about the date, time and place of meeting of Disciplinary
Committee to be held on 26.4.2019, on which date, the chargesheet
was prepared and consequently, the Disciplinary Committee resolved
for placing the same before the Executive Council for its approval,
which approved the chargesheet on 25.5.2019. Thereafter, the
Registrar, KGMU served on respondent No.1 the chargesheet
alongwith all documents enclosed therein, which was returned by the
respondent No.1 on 15.6.2019 on the pretext that the complaint of the
complainant, evidence and his affidavit are not enclosed with the
chargesheet. After enclosing the aforesaid three documents, the
chargesheet was again served on respondent No.1 on 28.6.2019.

(16) Third Writ Petition No.18642 (SS) of 2019 has been filed by
respondent No.1 challenging the chargesheet on 5.7.2019 before this
Court wherein counter affidavit has been filed and the said writ
petition is pending consideration. However, on 20.7.2019, respondent
No.1 returned the chargesheet again contending that the aforesaid
three documents are not enclosed with the chargesheet. Thereafter, on
29.7.2019, the Registrar, KGMU again served the chargesheet upon
respondent No.1 giving last opportunity to submit his written reply till
5.8.2019.

(17) On 6.8.2019, respondent No.1 preferred a representation
indicating that no further proceedings in terms of chargesheet can be
undertaken till such time Writ Petition No.18642 (SS) of 2019
challenging the chargesheet is pending consideration before this
Court.

(18) On 30.8.2019, taking note of the fact that respondent No.1 has
not filed written reply to the chargesheet and keeping in view the
seriousness of charges, the Disciplinary Committee recommended for
suspending respondent No.1 and accordingly, resolved to place the
said recommendations before the Executive Council. Relevant portion
of the recommendations dated 30.8.2019 read as under:-

"The duly approved Charge-Sheet by the Executive Council of the
University was served upon the delinquent employee vide letter no.
3588/ yojana anu,/2019 of the Registrar dated 14.06.2019. However,
in-spite of the fact that the Charge-Sheet contained all requisite
documents, the delinquent employee returned the same on 15.06.2019
alleging therein that the Complaint, it's evidence and the affidavit of
the complainant was not enclosed with the Charge-Sheet. The
documents as indicated in the delinquent employee's letter dated
15.06.2019 were duly enclosed along-with the Charge-Sheet and
therefore, the same was again served on the Petitioner, vide letter
no.4068/yojana anu./2019 of the Registrar dated 28.06.2019 through
Registered Post. The delinquent employee returned again the same on
20.07.2019 without giving any reply to the charges, alleging therein
that the evidence of the complaint was not enclosed with the Charge-
Sheet only to delay the hearing of charges, in-spite of the fact that the
Charge-Sheet contained all requisite documents of 200 pages. All
documents as indicated in the delinquent employee's letter dated
20.07.2019 were duly enclosed along-with the Charge-Sheet and
therefore, the same was again served on the Petitioner, vide letter
no.5019/yojana anu./2019 of the Registrar dated 29.07.2019 through
Head of Department and Registered Post with indicating that Charge-
Sheet approved by Executive Council is sent for presenting the
clarification up to 05.08.2019 as third and last opportunity to react
upon the Charge-Sheet otherwise it will be deemed that delinquent
employee has nothing to say and final report will be submitted on the
basis of available documents/ evidences to the appointing authority
for further action. Delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu again
returned the same vide his letter no.295/2019/pedsurg date
06/08/2019 alleging that Charge-Sheet not approved by appointing
authority i.e. Executive Council etc. while the fact is that Disciplinary
Committee constituted against delinquent employee Dr. Ashish
Wakhlu by the Executive Council in its meeting held on dated
13.10.2017, 02.06.2018 & 02.08.2018 and Charge-Sheet duly
approved by the Executive Council under Agenda Item no.-13 in its
meeting held on dated 25.05.2019 and this fact was clearly mentioned
in the letter sent to him with Charge-Sheet by the Registrar of the
University.

From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that instead of cooperating
with the disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent employee Dr. Ashish
Wakhlu is abusing the process of law in order to stall the disciplinary
proceedings which have been initiated in accordance with law and in
consonance with the provisions contained in the KGMU Act of 2002
and KGMU First Statute of 2011. Delinquent employee not respecting
the decision of the Appointing Authority and not responding to the
Disciplinary Committee during the formal disciplinary inquiry.
Delinquent employee received the Charge-Sheet and returned it every
time opportunity provided to him, it appears that he is not interested
in presenting his defence against the charges levelled on him.
Disciplinary Committee inspected and analyzed the relevant
documentary evidences presented before him that includes the minutes
of meeting held on 13 & 28 May, 2017 in the Chairmanship of Vice-
Chancellor, AKTU, detailed Report of Fact Finding Committee
submitted on 25th September, 2017, comments of enquiry committee
members on letter of complainant Dr. O. P. Prakash received from the
office of the Governor/Chancellor, Report received from Finance
Officer vide letter no.6260 dated 22/09/2018, documents of AIIMS
Rishikesh/ AIIMS Jodhpur, letters of Audit Department and
correspondences of Dr Ashish Wakhlu etc.

In view of above facts, it is clear that delinquent employee Dr. Ashish
Wakhlu is not respecting the decision of his employer i.e. Executive
Council of the University and not responding to the Disciplinary
Committee. Delinquent employee not responding to the Disciplinary
Committee, in spite of many opportunity provided to him for
presenting his clarification in response to charge sheet served three
times to him but he is not interested in presenting his defence against
the charges levelled and returned the original charge sheet all times.
Eventually he filed Writ Petition no.18642 (SS) of 2019 annexing and
challenging the Charge-Sheet, wherein counter affidavit has been
filed by the University but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Dr
Ashish Wakhlu. Delinquent employee consistently non cooperating in
the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the
appointing authority as Hon'ble High Court also permitted to the
university to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in his decision
dated 20.12.2018 during the hearing of Writ Petition no.35784 (SS) of
2018.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the charges which includes
Administrative and financial irregularities in nature besides non-
cooperation of delinquent employee the Disciplinary Committee,
hereby recommends for suspension of the delinquent employee Dr.
Ashish Wakhlu.

The aforesaid recommendations be placed before the appointing
authority of delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu i.e., the Executive
Council of the King George's Medical University for kind
consideration."

(19) On 19.10.2019, the Executive Council resolved for placing
respondent No.1 under suspension "for not co-operating to the
Disciplinary Committee". It was further resolved that the delinquent
employee be given an opportunity to submit explanation to the
chargesheet within fifteen days and conclude the enquiry within one
month. In terms of the aforesaid resolution of the the Executive
Council, the Registrar vide letter dated 24.10.2019 required
respondent No.1 to submit his reply to the chargesheet within fifteen
days. Subsequently, on 8.11.2019, the Registrar informed the date,
time and place of meeting of Disciplinary Committee to be held on
11.11.2019 to the respondent No.1.

(20) On 11.11.2019, respondent No.1 attended the proceedings of
Disciplinary Committee and requested for recording the Video
proceedings and demanded legal assistance during the
hearing/enquiry.

(21) The documents demanded by the respondent No.1 have been
supplied but no reply to the said chargesheet has been filed and the
respondent No.1 filed fourth Writ Petition No.33626 (SS) 2019
challenging the communication of suspension dated 19.10.2019. On
5.12.2019, an interim order has been passed staying the suspension
order dated 19.10.2019, until further orders of the Court and granted
a week's time to the appellants/ respondents to file counter affidavit
and respondent/petitioner was granted next one week to file rejoinder
affidavit and fix the matter after expiry of two weeks.

(22) Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention
towards Statute 11.06 and submitted that the suspension is not a
punishment and action of suspension proceeds on the
recommendations of Disciplinary Committee as per Statute 11.11 (4)
(iii). He submitted that a recommendation in sealed cover was
forwarded by the Disciplinary Committee both on account of
misconduct and non-cooperation on the part of the respondent No.1 in
the disciplinary proceedings on 30.8.2019. The recommendation so
made by the Disciplinary Committee was put up for consideration
before the Executive Committee which has passed a resolution on
19.10.2019 on account of his non-cooperating with the enquiry.
(23) Learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the
decision taken by the Executive Council is a collective decision
consisting of several persons and the resolution passed by the
Executive Council is sufficient and it is not necessary that the
deliberations took place in the meeting dated 30.8.2019 should also
form part of the decision. In absence of any such provision, collective
decision taken by a body has been communicated to the concerned
employee which has been assailed in Writ Petition no. 33626 (SS) of
2019 and the said order has been stayed and this question has been
considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1193
(SB) of 1997, Ahmad Moid v. State Public Services Tribunal through
Registrar. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment are relevant which read
as under:-

7. A similar argument came up for consideration before this Court in
Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta Vs. The Visitor/President of India, 2006
(1) AWC 608. In para 11 of the judgment, questions, which were
considered by Division Bench, have been formulated as (a), (b) and
(d), are reproduced as under:

"(a) Whether the orders passed by the Executive Council and the
Visitor are unsustainable in the eyes of law as they do not record
separate reasons.

(b) Whether it was necessary for the Executive Council to have
recorded a finding of guilt in respect of the charges found proved by
the Enquiry Officer in its resolution dated 16/17th May, 1989 by
imposing punishment, even after the enquiry report was accepted
earlier under the resolution of the Executive Council dated 28/29th
March, 1989, where under the Executive Council had specifically held
that the charges against the petitioner were proved and the enquiry
report was accepted."

(d) Whether in the facts of the present case, this Court would exercice
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour
of the petitioner."

8. Referring to the provisions whereby decision was to be taken by
Executive Council of University, the Court in paras 23, 25 and 31
held as under:

"23. From the provisions, which have been quoted herein above, it is
apparently clear that the decision to dismiss a teacher of the
University from service on the ground of misconduct, is to be taken
after following the procedure prescribed under Clause (c) of the said
statute by the Executive Council. The said Section does not require
recording of reasons for such a decision. Even otherwise, where a
collective decision by a body of person is required to be taken (like in
the facts of the present case), it is neither practically possible nor
legally required that opinion of all the members participating in the
delibeartions must be recorded, inasmuch as the decision of such
bodies are collective in nature, and only the decision as a whole, is
required to be recorded in writing and not the deliberation which had
to be such a decision. The deliberations which took place in the
meeting of the Excutive Council, are, therefore, not necessarily to be
recorded in its decision."
"25. In these circumstances, the first contention that the order of the
Executive Council as well as of the Visitor, being not supported by
reasons in writing is unsustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore,
rejected."

"31. This Court has no hesitation to record that decision taken in the
meeting of Executive Council cannot be faulted with and does not call
for interference in the writ proceedings. Issue No. (b) is answered
accordingly."

9. The Division Bench clearly said, when there is collective decision
of a larger decision making body, consisting of several persons, unless
law specifically requires, ultimate resolution passed by such Body is
sufficient and it is not necessary that deliberations which took place in
the meeting of Body, should also form part of the record or part of the
decision. In absence of any such provision, collective decision taken
by a body, in our view, has not to be assailed on the ground that
decision of such collective body communicated to concerned
employee is not a speaking and reasoned order.

10. In our view, where a decision is to be taken by a collective Body of
an institution, whether at the first stage or appellate stage, as the case
may be, it is the collective intention expressed by all those persons
constituting the Body. In such circumstances, requirement of
individual reasons to be given by them is neither possible nor
permissible and also not required unless it is specifically provided in
statute, which to the experience of the Court, we have never found
where power to take a decision has been given to a Body constituting
several persons. In fact, we are, clearly of the view that decision of a
Body constituting several persons is open to challenge on limited
grounds, i.e. quorum of meeting was not complete; there was no
deliberation in meeting in respect of decision; or there is participation
of disqualified person(s) in meeting; or, may be on the ground that
there was no agenda for consideration of subject matter on the date of
meeting. None of these grounds have been taken in the present case to
assail punishment order. Therefor merely because punishment order
did not contain any reason, the same cannot be said to be bad in law
for the reasons we have already discussed above."

(24) Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
respondent No.1/petitioner is filing writ petitions one after another in
order to linger on the proceedings. Though the chargesheet has been
served upon him on 24.10.2019, but till today, no reply has been filed.
Since the respondent No.1 was not cooperating and the allegation is
of financial embezzlement, therefore, considering the aforesaid
material, collective decision has been taken on 30.8.2019. Looking to
the seriousness of the charges, the Disciplinary Committee
recommended for suspension and accordingly, the Executive
Committee resolved for placing him under suspension.

(25) Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that since there
is no flaw in the order as the Competent Authority invoking the
provisions of Statutes 11.06 and 11.11 of KGMU passed the aforesaid
suspension order and prays for setting aside the impugned order and
the matter may be remitted to the learned Writ Court for deciding the
matter.
(26) Per contra, Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate submitted
that respondent No.1 is a reputed Pediatric Surgeon and in order to
malign his reputation, proceedings have been initiated and therefore,
he has no option but to challenge the same by filing writ petitions one
after another. He also submitted that while staying the suspension
order, it was provided that any observation made in this order shall
not have any bearing upon the enquiry proceedings and therefore, in
stead of setting aside the order impugned, the appellants be directed
to file their counter affidavit and thereafter, the matter be decided
expeditiously.

(27) In para - 9 of judgment and order dated 22.11.2013 passed in
Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, the Apex
Court held as under:-

"9. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary
manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of
power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a
strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the
allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or
indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are
there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved,
would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal
from service. The authority should also take into account all the
available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to
allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or
his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry."

(28) The order of suspension order can be passed by the competent
authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e.
serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence
available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for
ulterior purpose. The purpose is to complete the proceedings
unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary
proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of
papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it
is not desirable that the court may find out as which version is true
when there are claims and counter claims on factual issues. The court
cannot act as if it an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial
review.

(29) In the present case, learned Writ Court has observed that non-
cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be an unbecoming
act warrant suspension and therefore the suspension is arbitrary,
stayed the operation of suspension order until further orders.

(30) It has also come on record that on 20.12.2018, in Writ Petition
No. 35784 (SS) of 2018, taking note of the fact the judgment in Writ
Petition no. 29638 (SS) of 2018 was reserved on 16.11.2018, but later
on it was released on 6.2.2018, directed the appellants herein for
conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, but till today, no application
for modification/vacation of the said order has been filed.

(31) As the matter is pending before the learned Writ Court and
number of writ petitions have been filed by the writ petitioner-
respondent, therefore, we dispose of the Special Appeal in the
following manner:-

(i) List all writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.29638 (SS) of 2018,
Writ Petition No.35784 (SS) of 2018, Writ Petition No. 18642 (SS) of
2019 and 33626 (SS) of 2019 before the learned Writ Court for
analogous hearing.(

ii) Counter and rejoinder affidavits between the parties be exchanged
within four weeks.

(iii) We request the learned counsel for the parties to make a joint
prayer before the learned Writ Court to decide the matter
expeditiously, as early as possible, maybe decided within a period of
three months.

(iv) Till then, the interim order passed by the learned Writ Court shall
remain in operation. If the respondent No.1 will not cooperate and
tries to linger on the matter, the appellants are at liberty to file an
application for modification of interim order/ vacation of interim
order.

(v) It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits
of the case."

8. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant was that as the
applicant was dismissed from service on 10.06.2020, he preferred
present contempt application on 16.06.2020. In the present case,
notice was issued on 19.06.2020 to respondent nos.1 & 2.

It has further been submitted that the applicant filed Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 3840 of 2021 challenging the order dated 10.06.2020 passed
by Registrar of K.G.M.U., Lucknow and assailed the Agenda No. 08
of meeting dated 08.06.2020. In the said petition, vide order dated
23.02.2021, four weeks' time was granted to the University for filing
counter affidavit and two weeks for rejoinder affidavit after hearing
learned counsel for the parties; in the said order, it was also provided
that if the University proposed to fill up the post, on which, the
applicant was serving, the same should be subject to further orders of
this Court.

9. The order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the writ Court in the Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 3840 of 2021 is as under:-

"Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. V.K.
Singh and Sri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. Akanksha Dubey, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 5 &
8.

Issue notice to opposite parties no.6 & 7 returnable at an early date.

Steps within a week.

Office to proceed accordingly.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated
10.6.2020 passed by the Registrar, K.G.M.U., Lucknow dispensing
with the petitioner from service. This order appears to be a removal
order. The petitioner has also assailed Agenda No.8 of meeting dated
8.6.2020 vide which such impugned order has been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned
order has been passed in a haste manner without following the orders
being passed by this Court on 20.12.2018 in Writ Petition No.35784
(S/S) of 2018, whereby this Court has permitted the opposite parties to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
restraining that no final order shall be passed till delivery of judgment
as judgment was reserved by the Court. Sri Mathur has further drawn
attention of this Court towards Annexure No.69 to the writ petition,
which is an order dated 5.12.2019 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.33626 (S/S) of 2019, whereby the suspension order of the
petitioner was stayed, however, the departmental enquiry was
permitted to be concluded. Further, Annexure No.78 to the writ
petition is a judgment and order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No.29 of 2020, whereby the
Division Bench disposed of the said special appeal observing that the
pending writ petitions of the petitioner be heard after exchange of
affidavits and till then, the interim order passed by the learned Single
Judge shall remain in operation. The Division Bench has, however,
observed that if the petitioner does not cooperate and tries to linger
the matter, the respondents should be at liberty to file an application
for vacation of interim order/ modification of interim order. As per Sri
Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, application for vacation of interim
order has been filed but no order has been passed on the said
application. He has also informed that when the direction of this
Court has not been followed, contempt petition bearing No.936 of
2020 has been filed by the petitioner and the same is pending
consideration before the contempt court. As per Sri J.N. Mathur, if the
opposite parties were adamant to pass any coercive order/ punishment
order against the petitioner, the same could have been passed after
following the due procedure of law, more particularly following the
directions of this Court. Sri Mathur has submitted with vehemence
that none of the directions of this Court has been followed, neither the
direction of Single Judge nor the protection being extended by the
Division Bench in special appeal. Even the formal order of removal
has not been served upon the petitioner and when the petitioner came
to know about such order through press note, he preferred an
application for getting the order impugned, thereafter such order has
been served upon the petitioner. This all show the colourable exercise
of powers of the authority concerned.

Matter requires consideration.

Learned counsel for the K.G.M.U. prays for and is granted four
weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed within a period of two weeks.

List this petition on 6th April, 2021 as fresh.

It is, however, provided that in the meantime, if the opposite parties
proposed to fill up the post on which the petitioner was serving, the
same shall be subject to the further orders of this Court.

When the case is next listed, name of Ms. Akanksha Dubey shall be
printed in the cause list as counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 5 & 8."

10. It is evident from the pleadings that the dismissal order was passed
on 10.06.2020 during tenure of respondent nos.1 and 2, namely, Prof.
M.L. Bhatt, the then Vice Chancellor and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar
Dwivedi, Registrar. However, by the time, they were replaced by
Lieutenant General, Dr. Bipin Puri as Vice Chancellor, K.G.M.U.,
Lucknow, who was impleaded as respondent no.10 and notice was
issued to him on 08.02.2022.

The order dated 08.02.2022 passed by this Court in the present case is
as under:-

"Order on C.M. Application No.60693 of 2020 for impleadment.

1. Heard Sri J. N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aakash
Prasad and Dr. V. K. Singh for the applicant, who presses application
for impleadment of Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Puri, Vice Chancellor, King
George Medical University, Lucknow.

2. He submits that the present incumbent has taken over the charge of
the post of Vice Chancellor, King George Medical University,
Lucknow. The cause shown is sufficient. The application for
impleadment is allowed. Two days' time is allowed to the applicant to
make necessary incorporation in the memo of the petition.

Order on memo of the petition.

1. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the order of
the writ Court was apprised to the newly impleaded respondent but
despite knowledge of the order of this Court the same has not been
complied with.

2.Having heard counsel for the applicant and perusing the record, I
am satisfied that a case is made out under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E
of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section
23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) requiring to call upon
contemnor opposite party Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Puri, Vice Chancellor,
King George Medical University, Lucknow to submit his reply in
person or through counsel to the following charge:-

"Why contemnor opposite party Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Puri, Vice
Chancellor, King George Medical University, Lucknow be not
punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and
order dated 20.12.2018 passed in writ petition No.35784 (S/S) of 2018
(Prof. Ashish Wakhlu Vs. Hon'ble Chancellor, K.G.M.U., Lucknow
and others) and order dated 5.12.2019 passed in writ petition
No.33626 (S/S) of 2019 (Prof. Ashish Wakhlu Vs. State of U.P. and
others) ?"

3.Steps be taken within one week.
4. Notices be issued fixing 7.3.2022.

5. List on 7.3.2022."

11. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant was that the order
dated 08.02.2022 (supra) was challenged by prof. Lt. Gen. (retired)
Dr. Bipin Puri before Hon. Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No. 6899-6900 of 2022, which was converted in Civil Appeal No.
5455-5456 of 2022 and the aforesaid appeal was dismissed on
24.04.2024.

12. The order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 5455-5456 of 2022 is as under:-

"1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments and
orders passed by the High Curt. The appeals are, accordingly,
dismissed.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

13. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant was that in the
meantime, Prof. Sonia Nityanand resumed charge of Vice Chancellor
of K.G.M.U. and the application for impleadment was filed with the
request for impleadment of the new Vice Chancellor along with other
members of the Executive Council and the said application was
allowed on 08.05.2024, on which date, notices were issued to them.

14. The order dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court in the present
case is as under:-

"(Order on Impleadment Application i.e. I.A./26/2024)

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Sandeep Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. This is an application filed for seeking impleadment.

3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment
application is sufficient.

4. Accordingly, the impleadment application is allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out
necessary impleadment, forthwith.

(Order on Contempt Application)

1. Let notice be issued to newly impleaded respondents i.e. respondent
nos. 11 to 23 within a week to show cause as to why they should not
be punished for wilfull disobedience of the directions of this Court,
returnable within two weeks failing which the charges may be framed
after summoning the contemnors.
2. Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with the notice.

3. List this case on 09.07.2024 within top ten cases."

15. Next, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
order dated 08.05.2024 was challenged before the Division Bench in
Special Appeal No. 125 of 2024. In the said appeal, the contempt
proceeding was kept in abeyance on 27.05.2024 by the Division
Bench and the order was kept reserved. Thereafter, aforesaid special
appeal was disposed of on 30.05.2024 with liberty to respondent no.11
and others to move an application for discharge of notices and a
request was also made by the Division Bench to the Contempt Court
to consider relevant aspects of the matter as to whether the persons
were liable to be proceeded under the Act, 1971 and the inherent
powers of the High Court for having committed civil contempt; it was
further observed in the said order that all pleas were open for being
raised before the Contempt Judge and they were open for being
considered by the Contempt Court.

16. The orders dated 27.05.2024 and 30.05.2024 passed by the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 125 of 2024 are as under:-

Order dated 27.05.2024:

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of appellants is
taken on record.

2. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra along with Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned
Counsel for the appellants and Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior
Counsel along with Shri Sandeep Kumar Ojha for the respondents.

3. Judgment reserved.

4. Considering the important jurisdictional issues involved not only
regarding the Contempt Court but also regarding this appeal before
us, it is provided that till the delivery of judgment, contempt
proceedings as against the appellants shall remain in abeyance,
however, they may continue with regard to the other opposite parties
in the contempt petition."

Order dated 30.05.2024:

"(1) Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sandeep
Dixit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Ojha,
learned counsel for the respondent.

(2) This is an appeal by the Vice-Chancellor and Members of the
Executive Council of King George's Medical University, Lucknow
under Chapter VIII Rule V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
challenging an order passed by the Contempt Court on 08.05.2024 in
Contempt Application (Civil) No.963 of 2020 [Prof. Ashish Wakhlu vs.
Prof. M.L. Bhatt Vice-Chancellor, K.G.M.C., Lucknow & Ors.] In fact
an application filed by the respondent for impleadment of the
appellants herein has been allowed and then notices have been issued
to them. The said impugned order reads as under:-

"(Order on Impleadment Application i.e. I.A./26/2024)

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Sandeep Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. This is an application filed for seeking impleadment.

3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment
application is sufficient.

4. Accordingly, the impleadment application is allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out
necessary impleadment, forthwith.

(Order on Contempt Application)

2. Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with the notice.

3. List this case on 09.07.2024 within top ten cases. "

(3) The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that
jurisdictional facts which have to necessarily preexist the issuance of
any notice in a contempt proceedings were absolutely absent in the
case at hand yet learned Single Judge without satisfying himself,
prima facie, about any civil contempt having been committed by the
appellants has not only allowed the application for impleadment but
also issued notice to them for showing the cause as to why they should
not be punished for willful disobedience of this Court, failing which,
charges may be framed after summoning the contemnors. The
contention is that the contempt petition was filed in the year 2020
alleging that the Executive Council of the University by passing a
Resolution dated 08.06.2020 had violated an interim order passed on
01.12.2018 in Writ Petition No.35784 (S/S) of 2018 filed by the
respondent. The appellants whose impleadment has been allowed and
notices have been issued by the impugned order were not Members of
the Executive Council on 08.06.2020. In fact, appellant no.1 has been
appointed as Vice-Chancellor much later, that is, in August, 2023. The
other appellants have become Members of the Executive Council
much after 08.06.2020 and none of these appellants had any role to
play in the passing of the Resolution dated 08.06.2020 which
according to the respondent was contemptuous. In fact, in the affidavit
in support of the application for impleadment, there is no averment
whatsoever as to how the appellants herein had committed civil
contempt but ignoring all these facts and without recording any prima
facie satisfaction, the Contempt Court has passed the impugned order
in the absence of jurisdictional facts which would give jurisdiction to
the learned Single Judge to initiate contempt proceedings against the
appellants and in the absence of any prima facie satisfaction recorded
by the Contempt Court regarding existence of such jurisdictional
facts. The contempt Court has, thus, committed a jurisdictional error.

(4) The submission was that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal
in nature and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. These
are very harsh proceedings and therefore, their initiation should not
be a casual act as has happened in this case. This was not a case
where proceedings could have been initiated against the appellants
without even recording any satisfaction as to how, even prima facie,
they have committed any civil contempt. In the facts of the case,
apparently, no contempt has been committed by them as they were not
part of the Executive Council when the Resolution dated 08.06.2020
was passed.

(5) It was also submitted that, in fact, the Resolution dated 08.06.2020
has been challenged by the respondent by means of a separate Writ
Petition bearing No.3840 (S/S) of 2021 along with a challenge to the
order terminating his services dated 10.06.2020 but there is no
interim order therein. Now, by impleadment of the appellants, the
respondent veritably wants to arm twist them and secure his
reinstatement in contempt proceedings, thereby, seeking relief which
he has not yet got in the writ proceedings. In any case, so far as
contempt by the appellant is concerned, even prima facie, the same is
not made out by any stretch of imagination.

(6) In fact, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on
06.05.2024 an application was submitted before the Vice-Chancellor
i.e. appellant no.1. On the aforesaid application, the Vice-Chancellor
informed the respondent on 06.05.2024 itself that the above matter
will be placed before the Executive Council of the University at the
earliest since it is the appointing authority. But on that very date i.e.
on 06.05.2024, the respondent filed the application for impleadment
which was allowed within three days i.e. on 08.05.2024. The
respondent acted in haste just as the order impugned was passed.

(7) It was further submitted that as far as dismissal of Civil Appeal No
(S).5455-5456/2022 on 24.04.2024, the same was filed by Prof. Lt.
General (Retd.) Dr. Bipin Puri & Anr. and the said appeal does not
decide any issue qua the appellants herein, at best, the said order
would bind the appellants of the said appeal who were the other
opposite parties in the contempt proceedings and the said order
cannot be used against the appellants to make a case for contempt
which has to be considered independently especially as contempt
proceedings are against the person who is alleged to have committed
the contempt.

(8) It was also contented that it is not a case where some direction
was issued and it remained uncomplied and in the meantime, the
person holding the post demitted office as, in such case one who
succeeds will be bound to comply the said order but it is a case where
contempt alleged is against certain Members of the Executive Council
who had passed the Resolution dated 08.06.2020 which according to
the respondent is in the teeth of the interim order passed by this Court
in a writ petition which is still pending wherein a stay vacation
application is also pending. Now, in this scenario, as none of the
appellants were Members of the Executive Council at the relevant
time when the Resolution dated 08.06.2020 was passed nor did they
have any role to play in that regard, on the face of it, they could not
have been subjected to the rigour of contempt proceedings. None of
this has been seen and a jurisdictional error has committed in passing
the impugned order. It was contended that the right course for the
contempt court was to issue notice on the impleadment application to
the proposed opposite parties/ alleged contemnors whereupon the
correct facts would have been placed before the Contempt Court and
this situation would have been avoided. The appellants have been
subjected to initiation of contempt proceedings unjustifiably.

(9) On the other hand, Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the special appeal itself is not maintainable
as the impugned order did not qualify within the meaning of the term
'judgment' used in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952. He placed reliance on a Supreme Court's judgment
rendered in the case of 'Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors.' reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 and certain
other decisions. His submission was that the appellants were under an
obligation to rectify the contempt already committed by the
predecessors and not having done so they are liable to be prosecuted
for contempt. We pointedly asked Sri Dixit to point out any order of
the writ court in any of the writ petitions pending between the parties
wherein the Resolution dated 08.06.2020 or the order terminating the
services of the respondent on 10.08.2020 may have been stayed or for
that matter any direction may have been issued to the University to
reinstate the respondent or for that matter to withdraw the Resolution
dated 08.06.2020 and the order of termination from service, he could
not point out any such order.

(10) He referred to the earlier proceedings before the Contempt Court
wherein an application for deferment of hearing by the earlier Vice-
Chancellors was rejected against which a Special Leave Petition
bearing No.6899-6900 of 2022 was filed after framing of charge on
08.02.2022 by the then Vice-Chancellor and others and though,
initially interim orders were passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court but
ultimately, the special leave petition after being converted into Civil
Appeal No(s).5455-5456/2022 was dismissed. This aspect of the
matter has already been addressed by Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants as noticed earlier.

(11) In response, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
respondent is resorting to arm-twisting measures by filing an
application for impleadment with intent to intimidate the Members of
the Executive Council and brow beat them into doing something and
granting such relief to him which in fact he has not been able to
secure through the process of law in the writ petition wherein the
Resolution dated 08.06.2020 and the order of termination of his
service has been challenged. According to him, the impugned order
amounts to an interim judgment as it virtually decides the jurisdiction
of the Contempt Court to proceed and initiate the contempt
proceedings against the appellants, therefore, the appeal is
maintainable.
(12) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.

(13) The power to punish for contempt is vested in the High Court as
an inherent power and it flows from a constitutional provision
contained in Article 215 of the Constitution of India by virtue of which
it is a court of record having plenary powers including the power to
punish for its contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not
supersede or abrogate the inherent powers vested in it under Article
215 of the Constitution of India and legal position in this regard is
well settled. Reference may be made to a decision reported in (1997) 3
SCC 11 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through its Registrar
vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Ors' in this regard wherein vires contained
in Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
pertaining to contempt proceedings were under challenge. The said
Chapter of the Rules, 1952 contains rules framed under Section 23 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But before referring to the said
Rules, we may refer to the definition of 'civil contempt' contained in
Section 2 (a) and (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads
as under:-

"(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful
breach of an undertaking given to a court;"

(14) As per Rule 1 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules, 1952, the Rules
contained in the said Chapter shall govern presentation and hearing
of Contempt of Court cases coming to the High Court under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The impugned order has been passed
in proceedings for civil contempt and there is no dispute about it. In
this context, Rule 5 of Chapter-XXXV-E of the Rules, 1952 is relevant
which reads as under:-

"5. Issuance of notice :- Such allegations contained in the petition as
appears to the Court to make out a prima facie case of contempt of
Court against the person concerned, shall be reduced into charge or
charges by the Court against such person, and notice shall be issued
only with respect to those charges :

Provided that the Court shall not issue notice if more than a year has
elapsed from the alleged act of contempt of court. "

(15) On a bare reading of Rule 5, it is evident that there have to be
allegations contained in the petition making out a prima facie case of
contempt of court against the person concerned, meaning thereby, the
person who is arrayed as an opposite party. This condition is also
required to be satisfied in the case of an impleadment application if it
is to be allowed because there have to be allegations in the
application for impleadment making out a prima facie case for
contempt of court against the proposed party only then it can be
allowed.

(16) Rule 5 further provides that if there are such allegations in the
contempt petition the same shall be reduced into charge or charges by
the Court against such person, and notice shall be issued only with
respect to those charges. Some flexibility in the procedure to be
followed in this regard may be permissible but it has to be in
consonance with the principles of natural justice and fairness keeping
in mind the rigor of the proceedings. But existence of jurisdictional
facts and prerequisites and due and proper application of mind to the
same is a sine qua non at the stage of issuance of notice under Rule 5.

(17) In the case at hand apart from impleadment of the appellants
being allowed as opposite parties/ alleged contemnors, the writ court
has also issued notice for initiation of contempt proceedings.

(18) As per Rule 5, the Court has to be prima facie satisfied about
contempt having been committed by alleged contemnors. It is then
required to issue notice on such satisfaction.

(19) In this context, the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants is that on a bare reading of the affidavit in support of the
application for impleadment, no allegation as to how the appellants
herein have committed any civil contempt is made out. He further
contended that no satisfaction was arrived at nor recorded as is
required at the time of issuance of notice as per Rule 5.

(20) We have also perused the affidavit in support of the application
for impleadment. Without expressing any conclusive opinion on the
issue, we do not find any such specific allegation as to how the
appellants have committed willful contempt of the interim order dated
01.12.2018 passed in the concerned writ petition. We have also
quoted the order passed by the Contempt Court. We say no more at
this stage as the contempt proceedings are still pending and the
application for impleadment has already been allowed and notices
issued to the appellant.

(21) There are certain jurisdictional facts/ prerequisites which must
exist prior to initiation of contempt proceedings against a person by
issuance of notice in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter-XXXV-E of the Rules,
1952 as already discussed. They can be summarized as under:-

(a) There has to be an order of a Court or an undertaking before it
whether it be the High Court or the subordinate court for proceedings
under the Act, 1971 as contemplated in Section 2(b) of the said Act.

(b) Such order should have been communicated to the alleged
contemnor calling upon him to comply the same.

(c) There has to be some action or inaction or undertaking which may
amount to willful disobedience or flouting of such order or
undertaking so as to constitute civil contempt.

(d) There have to be allegations in the contempt petition or in an
application for impleadment mentioning the existence of aforesaid
jurisdictional facts/prerequisites making out a prima facie case of
deliberate and willful disobedience or violation of the order or
undertaking by the alleged contemnors/opposite parties or proposed
opposite parties.
(e) The contempt court has to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction
about existence of the aforesaid jurisdictional facts/ prerequisites
making out a prima facie case of contempt of court by the concerned
persons, before issuing notice.

(22) Only on the aforesaid satisfaction, notices have to be issued to
the alleged contemnors in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter-XXXV-E of the
Rules, 1952. Same analogy applies while considering and allowing an
application for impleadment in pending contempt proceedings.

(23) Issuance of notice in a contempt matter is not a causal or routine
procedure. It requires due and proper application of mind to the
aforesaid facts and issues. We must keep in mind that contempt
proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the standard of proof is
beyond reasonable doubt. These proceedings carry a rigor much more
than any other judicial proceedings for adjudication of disputes.
These proceedings are in exercise of powers of the High Court to
punish for its contempt and that of the subordinate courts. Therefore,
they should be exercised with circumspection and due and proper
application of mind even at the stage of initiation of such proceedings.

(24) This apart, ordinarily, when an application for impleadment is
filed in a pending contempt proceedings, practice has been to issue
notice to the proposed opposite party before considering it so that
they may have an opportunity to inform the contempt court about the
correct facts, unless from the facts placed and documents annexed, an
exceptional case is made out, prima facie. This is a time tested
procedure and a procedural requirement which should ordinarily be
adhered.

(25) This appeal raises important questions as to initiation of such
proceedings and whether, at least in the facts of this case. There are
jurisdictional issues involved, whether the jurisdictional
facts/prerequisites for initiation of such proceedings against the
appellants did exist or they did not, and whether the Contempt Court
without due and proper application of mind not only allowed the
application for impleadment without notice to the proposed opposite
parties but even issued the contempt notices which are impugned
herein. We were tempted to enter into and adjudicate these important
issues raised by the appellants and the respondent but considering the
fact that contempt proceedings are still pending and the appellants
have an opportunity to seek discharge of the notices issued to them
taking all such pleas as have been raised herein, we are of the opinion
that it is the Contempt Court itself which should first take a call on
these issues and thereafter, if the occasion so arises we can consider
the same at the appropriate stage as per law.

(26) In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to request the
Contempt Judge to kindly consider the pleas of the appellants on an
application for discharge being moved by them and take a considered
decision in this regard as per law. If after such decision is taken on
the question as to whether the appellants are liable to be proceeded
for contempt of court in the facts of the case, the appellants still have
a cause, they can avail the remedies prescribed in law.

(27) We accordingly dispose of this appeal with liberty to the
appellants to move an application for discharge of notices issued to
them to which respondent shall have a right to respond and we
request the Contempt Judge to consider relevant aspects of the matter
as to whether the appellants are liable to be proceeded under the Act,
1971 and the inherent powers of the High Court for having committed
civil contempt.

(28) All pleas are open for being raised before the Contempt Judge
and they are open for being considered by the Contempt Court.

(29) This order shall be placed before the learned Contempt Court."

17. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant was that the
aforesaid order dated 30.05.2024 was challenged in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 14479 of 2024 which was dismissed on 19.07.2024,
by which, it was clarified that while considering the application for
discharge, if so filed, or while deciding the contempt petition, the
observations made in the impugned order would not influence learned
Single Judge.

18. The order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No. 14479 of 2024 is as under:-

"1. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The special
leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

2. However, we clarify that while considering the application for
discharge, if so filed, or while deciding the contempt petition the
observations made in the impugned order would not influence the
learned Single Judge.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

19. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant was that in
identical set of facts, charge was framed against respondent no.10 -
Dr. Bipin Puri, the then vice Chancellor, K.G.M.U., vide order dated
08.02.2022 which was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing
the Civil Appeal No. 5455-5456 of 2022 on 24.04.2024, therefore,
there is no ground for discharge of respondent nos.11 to 23. The
respondent nos.11 to 23 are only authority for compliance by
rectification order.

It has further been submitted that proper representation was also given
to the new incumbents and in the minutes of the meeting of Executive
Council dated 15.06.2024, it was not stated that the Council has no
power to review its decision rather the Council might resolve to file
discharge before Hon'ble Court, therefore, discharge application was
liable to be rejected and respondent nos.11 to 23 might be punished
for willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court.

20. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the cases
of Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and Another
reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 and in the case of Khoday Distillerries
Ltd. and others vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane
Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate
jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been invoked, the order
passed in the appeal would attract the doctrine of merger.

21. Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
it was undisputed fact that on 16.11.2018, the judgement was reserved
in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018, thereafter, Writ Petition No.
35784 of 2018 was preferred, in which, interim order was passed till
the delivery of the judgement in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of
2018. But in place of delivery of judgement in Writ Petition No.
29638 (S/S) No. 2018, it was released on 06.02.2019 and order was
passed for placing it before the Hon'ble Chief Justice/Senior Judge for
its nomination before appropriate Bench, in such case, the order dated
20.12.2018 would not be in operation.

It has further been submitted that the applicant was placed under
suspension and suspension order was challenged in Writ Petition No.
33626 of 2019. The suspension order was stayed on 05.12.2019 and
the aforesaid order related to suspension was also challenged in
Special Appeal No. 29 of 2020, but the said petition was disposed of
on 21.01.2020 with the observation that party to make endeavour to
get decision in all four petitions. The charge-sheet was also challenged
in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 18642 of 2019, but no protection was
granted and the said matter was pending. In the meantime, inquiry was
concluded and order dated 10.06.2020 was passed on the basis of
Agenda No. 08 of meeting of Executive Council held on 08.06.2020,
which was also challenged in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3840 of 2021,
the said petition was pending. Liberty was granted by the writ Court
and it was ordered by the writ Court on 23.02.2021 that in case any
appointment was made on the said post, same should be subject to
further order of the Court.

It has next been submitted that respondent nos.11 to 23 resumed the
post after about four years from the date of passing a dismissal order
of the applicant. Therefore, it was not a case of willful disobedience of
the Court's order.

It has also been submitted that the stay vacation application was
pending along with dismissal of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018
since February, 2020.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decisions of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the cases of Kuntesh Gupta Dr. (Smt.)
vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.)
and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 2186 and Dr. Rajendra Bahadur
Singh and others vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) SCC OnLine
All 469.

He further relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the
cases of State of Jammu and Kashmir and Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and
others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 167 and Vinay Kumar Pandey vs.
Committee of Management, Shri Gandhi Inter College and another
reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 4007-4008 of 2020 and submitted that
in case the stay vacation application was pending for disposal, till then
no contempt proceeding could not be initiated.

He next relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the
case of Niaz Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 332 and submitted that for ensuring the
contempt proceeding, the contempt should be deliberate and
intentional. But in the present case, there was no such intention of the
respondents/applicants of discharge application.

He next submitted that principal of Res Judicata will not apply in the
present case. In case two views/ interpretation of the order is possible,
a party who acted on the basis of one such view/interpretation could
not be held to have willfully disobeyed the order, as such the contempt
proceedings would not maintainable.

Again relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the
case of Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta and others reported in
(2005) 12 SCC 1, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked as a measure of 'arm
twisting'.

Lastly, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the
case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others vs.
Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 101, learned counsel for the respondents requested that
discharge application might be allowed by discharging respondent
nos.11 to 23.

22. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
going through the pleadings as well as judgments relied by learned
counsel for the parties, it is evident from the record that the matter was
referred to disciplinary committee which decided to ensure
preliminary inquiry. The said preliminary inquiry report was
challenged in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018, in the said
petition, judgement was reserved on 16.11.2018. Thereafter, the
questionnaire dated 04.10.2018 was prepared by disciplinary
committee for conducting pre-inquiry, which was challenged in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018, in which, vide order dated
20.12.2018, it was observed that no final order should be passed till
delivery of judgement in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018. In
place of delivery of judgement in the said petition, it was released on
06.02.2019.

As once Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018 has been listed for
hearing again, the order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 35784 of 2018 will not be effective.

It is further evident that the petitioner was kept under suspension and
the suspension order was challenged, which was stayed by the writ
Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 33626 of 2019 on 05.12.2019 with the
observation that the petitioner should cooperate in the proceeding. The
said order of the writ Court was challenged in Special Appeal No. 29
of 2020 by K.G.M.U., which was disposed of on 21.01.2020 with the
observation that all the pending petitions i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No.
29638 of 2018, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018, Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 18642 of 2019 and Writ Petition (S/S) No. 33626 of 2019 be
decided.

It is undisputed fact that a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No.
18642 of 2019 was filed on 05.07.2019 by the applicant before this
Court challenging the charge-sheet and the said writ petition was
pending for consideration. Thereafter, as the applicant was dismissed
from service on 10.06.2020, he preferred present contempt application
on 16.06.2020 and notice was issued.

Further, the order of dismissal dated 10.06.2020 was also challenged
in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3840 of 2021, in which, order dated
23.02.2021 was passed with the observation that if any appointment
was made on the post, on which, the applicant was serving, the same
should be subject to further order of this Court.

It is observed by this Court that the order dated 20.12.2018 passed in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018 is diluted after passing the
order dated 06.02.2019 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018.

It is also evident from the record that five petitions of the
applicant/petitioner are still pending including the removal order.

23. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no contempt
is made out.

24. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.9.2024
Arpan

Digitally signed by :-
ARPAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…