Prof. Ashish Wakhlu vs. Prof. Soniya Nityanand

NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1290

PROF. ASHISH WAKHLU …APPELLANT
VERSUS
PROF. SONIYA NITYANAND
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has approached this Court being
rd
aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 23
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
Reason:
of which have been disposed of by this Court, while some are
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
th
of the hospital administration. Vide office order dated 19
March 2010, KGMU appointed the Appellant as the Nodal
Officer for the implementation of the CPMS.
th
2.3. An Audit Report was received on 29 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
th
action against the Appellant was submitted on 25
th
September 2017. Subsequently, on 13 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.
nd
2.5. On 2 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
th
communicated vide a notice dated 24 September 2018.
2.6. Being Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition
No. 29638 of 2018 (First Writ Petition) challenging the
th
preliminary enquiry report and the said notice dated 24
September 2018. The matter was heard, and it was reserved
th
for judgment by the learned Single Judge on 16 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
th
dated 20 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.
th
2.9. However, on 6 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
th
demanded by the Appellant was served upon him on 28
June 2019. Being aggrieved by the same, another Writ
Petition No. 18642 of 2019 (Third Writ Petition) was filed
challenging the chargesheet.
th
2.11. On 30 August 2019, the disciplinary committee
recommended that the Appellant be suspended and vide
th
communication dated 19 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
th
challenging the communication dated 19 October 2019. The
th
learned Single Judge, vide order dated 5 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
th
dated 10 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

th th
the High Court dated 20 February 2018 and 5 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
th
Petition, vide order dated 8 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.
th

2.17. Vide order dated 24 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
rd
vide the Impugned Order dated 23 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
th
could not be presumed that the interim order dated 20
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
th
20 December 2018 and was being extended from time to
th
time, the mere release of the matter on 6 February 2019
could not have constituted a valid ground for violating the
th
order dated 20 December 2018.

6. On this short ground, the appeal deserves to be
rd
allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23
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