Prof. Ashish Wakhlu vs Prof. Soniya Nityanand

2025 INSC 1290 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.27468 of 2024)

PROF. ASHISH WAKHLU …APPELLANT

VERSUS

PROF. SONIYA NITYANAND AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has approached this Court being

aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 23rd

September 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge of the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has

dismissed the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 936 of 2020

filed by the appellant. There are numerous proceedings filed

in this matter by the appellant as well as other parties, some Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.11.07 11:40:14 IST of which have been disposed of by this Court, while some are Reason:

still pending before the Writ Court. For ease of

1 understanding, the facts in brief leading up to the present

appeal are:

2.1. The Appellant was working as a Professor in the

Department of Pediatric Surgery of the King George’s Medical

College, Lucknow (“KGMU”, hereinafter).

2.2. In the year 2010, KGMU decided to employ a new

software called the Central Patient Management System

(“CPMS” hereinafter) for the management of various aspects

of the hospital administration. Vide office order dated 19th

March 2010, KGMU appointed the Appellant as the Nodal

Officer for the implementation of the CPMS.

2.3. An Audit Report was received on 29th August 2017,

and an objection was raised for irregularities in the

expenditure on CPMS during 2011 – 2012, i.e., the time

when the Appellant was in charge.

2.4. A three-member committee was formed to look into

the matter, and the report of the said committee for taking

action against the Appellant was submitted on 25th

September 2017. Subsequently, on 13th October 2017 the

Executive Council of the KGMU formed a six–member

2 disciplinary committee was formed in terms of Statue 11.11.

of the KGMU Rules to enquire into the matter.

2.5. On 2nd August 2018, the Executive Council decided

that the allegations regarding the audit objections be

dropped. However, further investigation was directed through

the six – member disciplinary committee for the complaints

received through other sources. The said decision was

communicated vide a notice dated 24th September 2018.

2.6. Being Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition

No. 29638 of 2018 (First Writ Petition) challenging the

preliminary enquiry report and the said notice dated 24th

September 2018. The matter was heard, and it was reserved

for judgment by the learned Single Judge on 16th November

2018.

2.7. Before the judgment could be delivered in the said

Writ Petition, the disciplinary committee conducted a fact-

finding exercise, and a questionnaire was sent to the

Appellant. Being Aggrieved by the said questionnaire, the

Appellant filed another Writ Petition No. 35784 (Second Writ

Petition) of 2018.

3 2.8. The learned Single Judge (same judge who had

reserved Writ Petition No. 29638 of 2018) in the said Writ

Petition challenging the questionnaire, vide interim order

dated 20th December 2018, permitted the Respondents

herein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, but directed

that no final order shall be passed till the delivery of the

judgment in the Writ Petition No. 29638 of 2018.

2.9. However, on 6th February 2019, the learned Single

Judge released the First Writ Petition which had earlier been

reserved for judgment and placed the same before the Chief

Justice for appropriate orders.

2.10. The chargesheet was submitted by the disciplinary

committee before the Executive Council and the same was

approved. The chargesheet, along with the documents

demanded by the Appellant was served upon him on 28th

June 2019. Being aggrieved by the same, another Writ

Petition No. 18642 of 2019 (Third Writ Petition) was filed

challenging the chargesheet.

2.11. On 30th August 2019, the disciplinary committee

recommended that the Appellant be suspended and vide

communication dated 19th October 2019, the Executive 4 Council accepted the recommendation and suspended the

Appellant for not cooperating with the disciplinary

committee.

2.12. Being Aggrieved, another Writ Petition No. 33626 of

2019 (Fourth Writ Petition) was filed by the Appellant

challenging the communication dated 19th October 2019. The

learned Single Judge, vide order dated 5th December 2019

stayed the suspension order issued against the Appellant.

2.13. Being aggrieved by the interim order, the

Respondents filed an appeal before the learned Division

Bench, which was disposed of with the directions that all the

Writ Petitions be listed together before the learned Single

Judge and that a joint application be made by the parties for

early hearing. It was directed that the interim order issued by

the Writ Court would remain in operation.

2.14. During the pendency of the four Writ Petitions, the

Appellant was found guilty of the charges and vide order

dated 10th June 2020, he was terminated from service.

2.15. Being aggrieved, a Contempt Application (Civil) No.

936 of 2020 was filed by the Appellant before the High Court

against the Respondents alleging contempt of the orders of 5 the High Court dated 20th February 2018 and 5th December

2019. Furthermore, another Writ Petition No. 3840 of 2021

(Fifth Writ Petition) was filed by the Appellant challenging the

final enquiry report and the termination order.

2.16. The learned Single Judge hearing the Contempt

Petition, vide order dated 8th February 2022 allowed the

impleadment of the Vice–Chancellor of KGMU and issued

notice to him. The Vice–Chancellor’s application for

deferment was rejected by the said learned Single Judge and

both orders were challenged before this Court.

2.17. Vide order dated 24th April 2024, Civil Appeal Nos.

5455–5456 of 2022 filed by the Vice–Chancellor were

dismissed by this Court.

2.18. Ultimately, the contempt application, filed by the

Appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge

vide the Impugned Order dated 23rd September 2024.

Aggrieved, thereby the present appeal was filed.

3. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Appellant submits that merely because a

W.P.(S/S) No. 29638 of 2018 was released by the Court, it

could not be presumed that the interim order dated 20th 6 December 2018 had ceased to operate. He submits that such

a view would not be a correct position of law and that, unless

leave of the Court was obtained by the Respondent, the

Appellant’s services could not be terminated.

4. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Respondent submits that there are five

proceedings filed by the present Appellant and what weighed

with the learned Single Judge of the High Court, while

dismissing the contempt petition, was the pendency of those

other proceedings, wherein the issues involved were similar

to those raised in the present case.

5. We do not propose to enter into the rival contention. It

is evident that 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.

6. On this short ground, the appeal deserves to be

allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd

September 2024 passed by the Single Judge of the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench is 7 quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the

High Court for considering the contempt petition afresh.

7. The High Court may also consider taking up the other

connected matters, if any, and hear them together for

effective adjudication.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

….........................CJI (B.R. GAVAI)

..................................J (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 27, 2025.

8