Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subhash Singh vs Shri Sudhir Saxena on 12 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17524
1 CONC-1923-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1923 of 2024
SUBHASH SINGH
Versus
SHRI SUDHIR SAXENA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vikas Gupta - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
Both the parties are heard finally.
2. Writ Court vide order dated 4.3.2024 passed in W.P.No.21141/2019
directed as under:
"Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of
petitioner in the following manner:
i. Penalty No.1 order dated 23-02-1979 and penalty No.2
order dated 23-03-1994 whereby the punishment of withholding of
increment without cumulative effect was inflicted upon the
petitioner were Minor punishments and one Major punishment
dated 30-05-1994 was given when he was reverted, what is the
status of petitioner in light of those punishments. Still he would be
denied or given promotion ?
ii. If all the three punishments are treated as Major then
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17524
2 CONC-1923-2024
whether the respondents conducted regular departmental enquiry
or not. In that condition judgment of Apex Court in the case of
O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180 whether
may come into play or not.
iii. Whether ceiling of consideration of
punishments/rewards of last five years as prescribed for promotion
were followed in the case or not ?
iv. If the petitioner is found entitled for promotion to the
post of A.S.I. when his juniors were promoted or any date around
their date of promotion, then what would be the fate of petitioner
for subsequent promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.
All these questions are required to be answered in objective
manner and in light of judgments referred above of this Court.
18. Petitioner may submit his representation in detail to
competent authority and in turn the said authority shall consider it
in tabular form if required and thereafter pass a detail order as
expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the
date of submission of certified copy of this order."
3. Respondents have filed the compliance report.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that writ Court has issued certain
directions regarding reconsideration of case of the petitioner in a specific
manner but same has not been complied with by the respondents and passed
the similar order as they have passed in earlier stage. Order passed by the
writ Court has not been duly complied with, hence he prays that respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17524
3 CONC-1923-2024
be punished for willfull disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court.
5. From perusal of order dated 19.5.2025 passed by DIG, Chambal
Range, Morena, it appears that the order passed has been passed in a tabular
form and all four directions issued by the writ Court has been duly complied
with and specific finding has been given regarding every facts and issues by
mentioning the specific provisions of relevant law and rules. If the petitioner
is still aggrieved with the order passed by the respondents, he is free to
challenge the same before the appropriate Court or forum in accordance with
law but this Court while deciding the contempt petition cannot go behind the
order passed by the writ Court and not having any jurisdiction to adjudicate
any fresh issue.
6. In view of detailed compliance report filed by the respondents, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the writ Court has
been duly complied with, therefore, the contempt proceeding drawn against
the respondents are hereby dropped and this contempt petition is finally
disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
