Jharkhand High Court issues contempt notice to Garhwa SP over failure to reinstate employee despite repeated orders

The respondent’s reinstatement was directed by an order dated 14 March 2024, but the appellants had not implemented it despite no interim relief being granted

On 3 August 2026, the Division Bench declined the appellants’ request for blanket interim relief and directed them to reconsider the quantum of punishment within four weeks and place their decision before the Court

The appellants’ modification application was dismissed on 16 September 2026, after which their counsel undertook that the direction would be complied with within a week

On 28 September 2026, the appellants sought a further four weeks, citing administrative procedures and structural complexities

1. Whether the appellants should be granted further time to comply with the Court’s direction to reconsider the punishment

2. Whether the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, should be required to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for non-compliance with the Court’s orders

3. Whether interim directions should be made to secure the respondent’s reinstatement or payment of salary pending compliance

The Court relied on its prior directions in the case: an application for modification is distinct from a review and should not be used to reargue a matter; the Court had also directed reconsideration of the punishment within a specified period and clarified that implementation should not be delayed.

The Court referred to the Contempt of Courts Act as the basis for requiring the Superintendent of Police to show cause, but specified no section or separate statutory test.

The appellants had failed to comply with the reinstatement order for almost 30 months and had not acted on the direction to reconsider the punishment, notwithstanding the refusal of interim relief and counsel’s undertaking to comply within a week.

The Court considered the renewed request for four weeks, based on administrative and structural reasons, a further attempt to delay compliance and an abuse of the process.

In light of the continuing non-compliance, it issued a show-cause notice to the Superintendent of Police and directed that the respondent be allowed to join duty or receive the salary of the post to which he was to be reinstated.

It directed the appellants to allow the respondent to join duty from 5 October 2026 or, if they did not permit him to join, to pay him the salary of the post to which he was directed to be reinstated.

The Superintendent of Police was to appear personally on the next date, and the matter was listed for 7 October 2026 at 2:15 p.m.