Contempt proceedings cannot survive once the underlying order alleged to have been violated is set aside.

The petitioners (a Block Development Officer and a Block Education Officer) were directed by the District Appellate Authority, Samastipur, on 31.05.2024 to appoint one Dileep Kumar Das.

Upon non-compliance, Contempt Case No. 05/2024 was initiated, resulting in an order dated 07.12.2024 imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioners and recommending departmental proceedings.

Although the State Appellate Authority stayed the original appointment order on 15.01.2025 and eventually set it aside on 31.10.2025 (holding Das's appointment invalid), the District Appellate Authority continued the contempt proceedings.

On 10.01.2026, the District Authority directed the Treasury Officer to enforce the fine, reasoning that the State Appellate Authority had not specifically vacated the cost/penalty orders.

Whether contempt proceedings and associated penalties can be sustained when the underlying order, whose violation was alleged, has been set aside by a superior appellate authority.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of administrative and judicial hierarchy, holding that when an original order is set aside by a superior forum, it ceases to exist in the eyes of the law (ex tunc).

Any ancillary proceedings for the enforcement or punishment for non-compliance of that "non-existent" order, such as contempt or imposition of costs, lose their legal foundation and jurisdiction.

The Court analyzed the timeline of the litigation to determine the validity of the District Authority's actions and noted that the State Appellate Authority, in its final order dated 31.10.2025, not only set aside the District Authority's direction to appoint Dileep Kumar Das but also ordered his removal from service, declaring his appointment void from the outset.

The High Court reasoned that since the original order dated 31.05.2024 was "set aside," there remained no legal basis or "question of any contempt being made out".

The District Appellate Authority’s insistence on enforcing the fine and withholding the petitioners' salaries despite the reversal of the main order was deemed "wholly without jurisdiction".

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 07.12.2024, 18.10.2025, and 10.01.2026 passed by the District Appellate Authority, holding that the petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits, including the release of salaries and benefits deprived due to the impugned orders.