NDLI: Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. G. Pattanaik & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Contempt of Court
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27 Referred Case 28 Referred Case 29 Referred Case 30 Referred Case 31 Referred Case 32 Referred Case 33 Referred Case 34 Referred Case 35 Referred Case 36 Referred Case 37 Referred Case 38 Referred Case 39 Referred Case 40 Referred Case 41
Case Type	Contempt Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Disposed Off
Headnote	Contempt of Court: Civil contempt – It is well settled that contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the Court – In the instant case, the limited direction given by the High Court and not disturbed by this Court was to permit the petitioners to work on the concerned posts and to pay them regular salary as and when the same accrues to them – Grievance of the petitioners in the first set of contempt petitions was that the respondents have appointed them afresh instead of reinstatement with continuity of service along with arrears of wages and thus have wilfully violated the direction of this Court – The expression used is only “to permit the petitioners to work on the posts” which were held by them at the time of their termination and “to pay them regular salary month by month” and “as and when the same accrues to them” – It is not a case of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Contempt of Court: Civil contempt – The second set of contempt petitions, emanate from termination order issued by the respondents – These petitions essentially proceed on the allegation that the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in not affording prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and similarly placed persons despite express direction contained in the said order – High Court had set aside the termination order issued by the respondents, solely on the ground that it was in violation of principles of natural justice – At the same time, liberty was given to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law including by undertaking exercise of segregating the tainted from the untainted candidates – Had the respondents concluded that it was possible to segregate tainted from untainted candidates, they would have been obliged to comply with the directions given by the High Court and restated by this Court to afford prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and similarly placed persons before passing fresh, reasoned order – However, from the subject termination order which is a speaking order, it is crystal clear that after due enquiry and taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, in particular the enquiry reports and the opinion of the experts including final report of SIT, the respondents were of the considered opinion that it was not possible to segregate tainted from the untainted candidates for reasons recorded in that order – In light of the conclusion reached by the respondents that it was not possible to segregate the tainted from the untainted candidates, in law, it must follow that the respondents could annul the entire selection process and pass the impugned order without giving individual notices to the petitioners and similarly placed persons – Thus, there was nothing wrong in respondents issuing the said termination order without affording prior opportunity to the petitioners and similarly placed persons. Constitution of India: Arts 32 and 226 – If the termination order is assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, such a grievance can be brought before the constitutional Court including by way of writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution of India – It is a different matter that this Court may be loath in entertaining the grievance directly under Art.32 and instead relegate the petitioner(s) before the High Court to first exhaust the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution of India – In the present case, there are other proceedings pending in the form of contempt petitions and a transfer petition wherein the termination order is the subject matter – Thus, the arguments in these cases will be overlapping – In that, the self-same order has been impugned in the writ petition filed before this Court – The fact that other affected similarly placed persons have filed writ petitions directly before the High Court and which are stated to be pending, can be no impediment for this Court in entertaining and deciding the writ petition – For, the issue regarding the purport of orders passed by this Court needs to be answered appropriately in contempt petitions only by this Court – It is not open to the High Court to interpret or explain the order passed by this Court in previous proceedings between the parties – High Court can only follow the dictum of this Court which is binding on it – Accordingly, the preliminary objection taken by the respondents regarding the maintainability of writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution by similarly placed persons directly filed before this Court to assail the impugned order which is also subject matter of second set of contempt petitions is not sustainable – Contempt of court.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 305
Petitioner	Abhishek Kumar Singh
Respondent	G. Pattanaik & Ors.
SCR	[2021] 5 S.C.R. 305
Judgement Date	2021-06-03
Case Number	625

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. G. Pattanaik & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Bigyan Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora

Smt. Ram Pyari & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal

Vineet Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Vineet Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India and Ors.

in Re: Balwan Singh Vs. No Respondent

Santanu Chaudhuri Vs. Subir Ghosh

Mohd. Qaiser Vs. L.k. Sinha and Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. G. Pattanaik & Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. G. Pattanaik & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Bigyan Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora

Smt. Ram Pyari & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal

Vineet Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Vineet Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India and Ors.

in Re: Balwan Singh Vs. No Respondent

Santanu Chaudhuri Vs. Subir Ghosh

Mohd. Qaiser Vs. L.k. Sinha and Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. G. Pattanaik & Ors.