'Only Wilful Disobedience Amounts To Contempt': Uttarakhand HC Closes Case Against IIM Kashipur Interim Chairman, CAO

A bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani added that it should be an informed choice of the contemnor not to obey the Court's order, and if it is so, only then would the provision of contempt be attracted.

The bench was essentially dealing with a plea filed by one Vinay Sharma, who had alleged that there was a wilful disobedience by the respondents of the HC's October 2024 order passed in WPSB No. 549 of 2024, Vinay Sharma vs. Sandeep Singh and another.

It was stated before the single judge that the petitioner was working in IIM, Kashipur and was served with a show cause notice on July 29, 2024, which was challenged in the first petition. By order passed therein, the petitioner's suspension was stayed.

Subsequently, the petitioner intended to join the post of Registrar in AIIMS Rajkot, but was not relieved. Due to the non-grant of vigilance clearance, the petitioner again approached the Court again, and a direction was issued to the IIM Kashipur that he be given a vigilance clearance in the prescribed format.

Now, in the contempt plea, it was the case of the petitioner that despite categorical directions of the Court, the vigilance clearance certificate was not given, due to which he could not join AIIMS, Rajkot.

The petitioner specifically impleaded Sandeep Singh, Interim Chairperson, BoG IIM Kashipur and Col. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay (Retd.), Chief Administrative Officer, as party respondents.

Before the bench, the respondents submitted that vigilance clearance had been given in the prescribed format, and that there was no wilful disobedience.

The petitioner submitted that although vigilance clearance was issued, some words were changed in the format, and it was not given as directed, resulting in non-acceptance of the request for deputation.

On the other hand, the respondents submitted that since disciplinary case and departmental inquiry were pending against the petitioner, the certificate issued to him stated that "the integrity will be certified accordingly in due course".

Taking into account this submission of the respondents, the Court observed thus:

“Every disobedience is not contempt. In order to bring a breach of the Court's order within the realm of contempt, it should be wilful disobedience. The intention is very important for it. It should be an informed choice of the contemnor not to obey the Court's order. And if it is so, only then the provision of contempt would be attracted”.

The Court further recorded that in the instant case, the vigilance clearance certificate was indeed given in the format itself, but the factum of the disciplinary case and departmental inquiry has also been revealed in the same.

The court was of the view that its direction to issue vigilance clearance was followed, and thus, it could not be said that the respondents did make any wilful disobedience of this Court's order.

Accordingly, finding no reason to proceed further in the matter, the Court closed the contempt proceedings.

Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta appeared for the petitioner.

Advocates Digvijay Nath Dubey and Jagdish Singh Bisht appeared for the respondents