1. Contempt proceedings for non-compliance of writ order setting aside salary stoppage and directing payment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 636
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Chheda Lal Gangwar - Applicant
Versus
Chandrakesh Singh, District Basic Education And Another – Respondents
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4344 of 2021
Decided On : 07-05-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Manu Saxena
For the Respondent: Amit Shukla, Shashi Kant Srivastava, Shrikant Srivastava, Yatindra
For the Applicant : Manu Saxena
For the Respondent: Amit Shukla, Shashi Kant Srivastava, Shrikant Srivastava, Yatindra
A contempt application is not maintainable if the court's direction to decide an appeal has been complied with and the resulting order is neither challenged nor stayed by a competent court.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Compliance with court directions - Contempt proceedings initiated for alleged non-compliance with directions to decide a departmental appeal within a specified period and to keep recovery orders in abeyance until such disposal - If the appeal has been decided by the competent authority and the decision is not under challenge, nor any interim order is operating in favour of the applicant, no case for contempt is made out. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
(B) U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - Service termination - Order of termination passed without following the prescribed enquiry procedure under the relevant service rules is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A teacher's salary was stopped and services were subsequently terminated based on complaints of impersonation. The termination was initially quashed by the writ court as it was passed without a proper enquiry under the applicable service rules. Following a subsequent formal enquiry, the services were terminated again. The teacher preferred a departmental appeal against this second termination. In a separate writ petition challenging recovery orders, the court directed the appeal to be decided within four weeks and ordered that the interim stay on recovery remain in currency until the disposal of said appeal. A contempt application was later filed alleging non-compliance with these directions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellate authority had already decided the appeal. Since the order passed by the appellate authority was not challenged and no other interim order was operating in favour of the applicant, there was no basis for a contempt claim.
Issues: Whether the disposal of a departmental appeal, following a court's direction to do so within a specified timeframe, renders a subsequent contempt application for non-compliance misconceived.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with a court's direction to decide an appeal within a timeframe, coupled with the absence of a legal challenge to the resulting decision or a subsisting interim stay, negates any claim of willful disobedience or contempt of court.
Result: Contempt application dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Applicant alleged non-compliance of court orders; opposite party contended appeal was decided and no interim order operates. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. No writ petition is pending nor any interim order operating in favour of applicant; no contempt made out. (Para 10 )
4. Contempt requires non-compliance of a subsisting order; if order is complied or superseded, no contempt lies. (Para 10 )
5. Contempt application dismissed as misconceived for absence of any non-compliance of a subsisting order. (Para 11 )
6. What constitutes contempt of court in the context of non-compliance of a court order?
Contempt requires that there be a subsisting court order that has not been complied with; if the order is complied or superseded, no contempt is made out. (Para 10 )
7. Can contempt proceedings lie when the underlying order has been complied with or superseded by a subsequent order?
No. Contempt proceedings are not maintainable if the order alleged to have been breached is no longer subsisting or has been complied with. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT :
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Amit Kumar, Principal/Deputy Director of Education, District Institute of Education and Training, Chhibramau, Kannauj, earlier BSA of District Pilibhit is present in the Court today, who is identified by Sri Yatindra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party.
2. A personal affidavit of the officer has been filed today, which is taken on record.
3. The present contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for not-complying the order of the writ Court dated 11.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.6003 of 2021 which is as under under:-
"Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.6.2020, passed by District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit whereby orders have been passed stopping the salary to the petitioner mainly on the ground that certain complaints of serious nature were received in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit.
It is argued that since 29.6.2020, in pursuance of the said order, the salary is not being paid to the petitioner.
This Court, vide order dated 09.07.2021, had called upon the respondents to seek instructions as to how the said order dated 29.6.2020 came to be passed.
Counter affidavit has been filed today stating that some other person impersonating himself as Chheda Lal Gangwar, (petitioner herein) is doing the service and reports in that regard have been received by the respondents which led to the passing of the order dated 29.6.2020.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an earlier enquiry conducted in respect of similar allegations against the petitioner which resulted in passing of the order dated 23.3.2005 with directions for payment of salary to the petitioner. He thus argues that once the enquiry has been concluded, no occasion survives for passing of the order dated 29.6.2020. He also argues that even otherwise in terms of Scheme of the Rules governing the services of the petitioner, the order adverse to the petitioner can be passed only in accordance with law as laid down in the Rules being the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1978. He argues that the procedures prescribed in the Rules have not been followed and thus the order dated 29.6.2020 is without any authority of law.
The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that on account of certain complaints, the petitioner was called upon and hearing was accorded to him on 21.7.2021 and the respondents are in the process of taking further steps for enquiry.
Considering the submissions made at the Bar and perusal of the order dated 29.6.2020, it clear that the same is without any powers conferred upon the respondent no. 2 and further the said order is neither in the nature of suspension order nor in the nature of punishment order. The said order is bereft of any reasoning whatsoever, besides being in violation of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the order dated 29.6.2020 is set aside with directions for payment of salary to the petitioner forthwith, however, the respondents will be at liberty to initiate and proceed in the manner prescribed under law against the petitioner, if so advised.
The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said direction.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of this order. "
4. Subsequent to passing of the order of the writ Court, an enquiry was initiated against the applicant and his services were terminated on 22.09.2021. The said order was challenged in Writ-A No.14744 of 2021 which was partly allowed on 12.01.2022 and following order was passed:-
"The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the District Basic Education Officer. The petitioner joined his services on the very same date. On 29.6.2020, an orde
