ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH versus G. PATTANAIK & ORS.

ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH versus G. PATTANAIK & ORS.

Contempt petitions are dismissed because the orders of the High Court and this Court did not expressly direct reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages and permitted a fresh, reasoned exercise; contempt requires wilful disobedience and the respondents reasonably interpreted the directions. Further, because the respondents concluded after enquiry and expert reports that segregation of tainted and untainted candidates was not possible, annulling the entire selection without individual notices was legally permissible; accordingly, contempt in respect of the termination order fails and related writs are relegated to the High Court for expeditious adjudication.

Parties
Petitioner: Abhishek Kumar Singh; Respondent: G. Pattanaiik & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) / Disposed
Outcome
Show-cause notices discharged; contempt petitions dismissed; transfer petition rejected; writ petition disposed with liberty to pursue remedies before High Court; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Reinstatement and Back Wages, Maintainability of Writs Under Article 32 Vs Article 226, Segregation of Tainted and Untainted Candidates in Recruitment, Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Administrative Law Service/employment Law Natural Justice Reinstatement and Back Wages Maintainability of Writs Under Article 32 Vs Article 226 Segregation of Tainted and Untainted Candidates in Recruitment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abhishek Kumar Singh

Petitioner

G. Pattanaiik & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) / Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order dated 4.12.2018 reengaging petitioners without continuity of service and without arrears was wilful disobedience of this Court's order dated 15.11.2018/High Court order dated 28.11.2017
  2. 2 Whether the termination order dated 2.3.2020 cancelling the entire recruitment without prior individual notice violated the direction to afford opportunity of hearing and thus amounted to contempt/wilful disobedience

Ratio Decidendi

Contempt petitions are dismissed because the orders of the High Court and this Court did not expressly direct reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages and permitted a fresh, reasoned exercise; contempt requires wilful disobedience and the respondents reasonably interpreted the directions. Further, because the respondents concluded after enquiry and expert reports that segregation of tainted and untainted candidates was not possible, annulling the entire selection without individual notices was legally permissible; accordingly, contempt in respect of the termination order fails and related writs are relegated to the High Court for expeditious adjudication.

Court Disposition

Show-cause notices discharged; contempt petitions dismissed; transfer petition rejected; writ petition disposed with liberty to pursue remedies before High Court; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Show-cause notices issued in the respective contempt petitions stand discharged
  • Contempt petitions are dismissed