Prof. Ashish Wakhlu Contempt Application Dismissed

Authority: Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Justice Rajeev Singh, J.)

Order Date: 23 September 2024

Case Overview

• Applicant: Prof. Ashish Wakhlu, Assistant Professor (later Professor) in the Department of Paediatrics Surgery, King George's Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow.
• Opposite parties: Prof. M L Bhatt (Vice‑Chancellor, KGMU at the time of the original suspension), the Registrar of KGMU, and a total of nine respondents including later‑incumbent Vice‑Chancellor Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Puri and other Executive Council members.
• The contempt application (Civil) No. 936 of 2020 was filed on 16 June 2020, alleging willful disobedience of two earlier High Court orders: (i) the interim order dated 20 December 2018 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018, and (ii) the interim order dated 5 December 2019 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 33626 of 2019.
• The dispute stems from a series of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant:
• Audit objection dated 29 August 2017 led to a three‑member inquiry committee reporting on 25 September 2017.
• A six‑member Disciplinary Committee was constituted on 13 October 2017; its constitution was communicated on 24 September 2018.
• The Committee issued a pre‑inquiry questionnaire on 4 October 2018, which the applicant challenged in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 35784 of 2018.
• The applicant also filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018 challenging the preliminary enquiry report; judgment was reserved on 16 November 2018 and released on 6 February 2019.
• A formal charge‑sheet was approved by the Executive Council on 25 May 2019 and served on the applicant on 14 June 2019; the applicant repeatedly returned the charge‑sheet claiming missing documents, prompting further service on 28 June 2019 and 29 July 2019.
• On 30 August 2019 the Disciplinary Committee recommended suspension for “non‑co‑operation” and serious financial irregularities; the Executive Council resolved on 19 October 2019 to suspend the applicant.
• The suspension order was stayed by the High Court on 5 December 2019, with a direction that the applicant must cooperate in the enquiry.
• The applicant was dismissed from service on 10 June 2020 (Agenda No. 08 of the Executive Council meeting held on 8 June 2020) and subsequently filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3840 of 2021 challenging the dismissal.
• Numerous writ petitions remained pending: Writ Petition (S/S) No. 29638 of 2018, No. 35784 of 2018, No. 18642 of 2019 (challenging the charge‑sheet), and No. 33626 of 2019 (challenging the suspension). A Special Appeal (No. 29 of 2020) was disposed of on 21 January 2020, directing that all four writ petitions be heard together.
• The Supreme Court dismissed a related civil appeal (No. 5455‑5456 of 2022) on 24 April 2024, leaving the High Court proceedings untouched.
• The contempt court subsequently allowed impleadment of additional respondents (numbers 11‑23) on 8 May 2024 and issued notices for them to show cause for alleged wilful disobedience of the 20 December 2018 and 5 December 2019 orders.
• The Division Bench, hearing Special Appeal No. 125 of 2024, placed the contempt proceedings in abeyance on 27 May 2024, noting jurisdictional issues, and on 30 May 2024 reiterated that the impleadment order lacked a prima‑facie finding of contempt against the newly impleaded parties.
• The applicant further sought discharge of the notices; the Division Bench on 30 May 2024 directed that the Contempt Judge consider the discharge applications before proceeding.
• A Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14479 of 2024 was dismissed on 19 July 2024, clarifying that any observations in the impugned order would not influence the Single Judge’s later decision on discharge.
• The Court examined the statutory framework (Statute 11.06 and 11.11 of KGMU’s First Statutes, Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) and concluded that:
• No specific allegation in the impleadment affidavit demonstrated that the newly impleaded respondents had committed civil contempt.
• The requisite jurisdictional facts—existence of a court order, communication to the alleged contemnor, and wilful disobedience—were not established.
• The earlier suspension and dismissal orders had been stayed or were pending, and the applicant had not shown willful non‑co‑operation beyond the procedural disputes.
• Consequently, the High Court could not satisfy the prima‑facie requirement under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV‑E for issuing contempt notices.

Final Outcome

• The Allahabad High Court held that no contempt of court was made out against any of the respondents.
• The contempt application (Civil) No. 936 of 2020 was dismissed in its entirety.
• No further contempt proceedings were ordered, effectively terminating the contempt litigation.

Topics: Contempt of Court, University Disciplinary Proceedings