Termination of Service During Pendency of Interim Stay Amounts to Prima Facie Contempt Supreme Court

“It is evident that once an interim order was in operation... the mere release of the matter... could not have constituted a valid ground for violating the order” — Supreme Court of India, quashed a High Court order dismissing a contempt petition and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that termination of a university professor’s services during the pendency of a subsisting interim order restraining final action in disciplinary proceedings amounted to a prima facie violation of judicial orders, warranting reconsideration of the contempt plea.

The crux of the controversy involved whether the “release” of a writ petition from the reserved-for-judgment board extinguishes interim protections granted in that matter. The Supreme Court held that it does not, thereby setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of the professor’s contempt petition.

Interim Order Restraining Final Action Survives “Release” of Reserved Writ Petition

In a pointed observation that underlines the binding nature of interim judicial orders, the Supreme Court held:

“Once an interim order was in operation from 20th December 2018 and was being extended from time to time, the mere release of the matter on 6th February 2019 could not have constituted a valid ground for violating the order dated 20th December 2018.”

This ruling makes it clear that interim orders survive administrative actions like the release of a case from the reserved list, unless expressly vacated or modified by the Court.

Professor Terminated Despite Ongoing Interim Protection and Pending Petitions

The case arose from a long-standing disciplinary dispute at King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, involving the appellant, Prof. Ashish Wakhlū, who was appointed Nodal Officer for implementation of the Central Patient Management System (CPMS) in 2010. Following audit objections over expenditure related to CPMS in 2011–12, disciplinary proceedings ensued.

Despite multiple writ petitions filed by Prof. Wakhlū challenging various stages of the proceedings — including the preliminary inquiry, questionnaire, charge sheet, suspension, and eventual termination — the High Court had, via interim order dated 20 December 2018, expressly prohibited the university from passing any final orders in the disciplinary process until judgment in the initial writ petition.

However, on 10 June 2020, the University terminated the professor’s services, despite the fact that multiple petitions were still pending and the interim order was in force.

The University’s primary defense rested on the fact that the first writ petition (W.P. No. 29638 of 2018), in which judgment had been reserved, was “released” from the list on 6 February 2019 and placed before the Chief Justice for reassignment. This “release,” it was argued, nullified the interim order.

Does Releasing a Reserved Case Nullify Its Interim Orders?

This legal question formed the centerpiece of the contempt proceedings initiated by Prof. Wakhlū before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 936 of 2020, which the High Court dismissed on 23 September 2024, finding no willful disobedience. The High Court noted the multiplicity of writ proceedings, which in its view diluted the applicability of any single interim order.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that:

“The mere release of the matter could not have constituted a valid ground for violating the order dated 20th December 2018.”

On this “short ground”, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the contempt petition back to the High Court.

Supreme Court Remits Contempt for Fresh Adjudication; High Court Asked to Hear Connected Matters Together

Highlighting the procedural chaos arising from fragmented litigation, the Supreme Court directed that the High Court may also take up all connected writ petitions together for effective adjudication. The Bench observed that piecemeal consideration of closely related proceedings had led to confusion, and that a composite hearing would better serve the ends of justice.

“The High Court may also consider taking up the other connected matters, if any, and hear them together for effective adjudication.”

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23 September 2024 was quashed, and the contempt petition was remitted for reconsideration. All pending applications were disposed of.

Interim Orders Must Be Respected Until Vacated—Administrative Releases Are Not Substitutes for Judicial Orders

This judgment serves as a critical reaffirmation of judicial authority over interim orders. By holding that mere procedural steps such as releasing a reserved matter do not extinguish binding judicial directions, the Supreme Court has clarified an important point of procedural law with implications for contempt jurisprudence and administrative conduct of litigation.

It also underscores that parties cannot bypass binding court directions on the basis of technicalities, and disciplinary or executive action in violation of subsisting court orders may amount to contempt.

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025