The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has framed charges for contempt of court against Dr. Sanjay Singh, the Director General of the Uttar Pradesh Council of Agricultural Research (UPCAR), for the “willful and deliberate disobedience” of court orders that had stayed the termination of several employees. The court, presided over by Justice Rajeev Singh, found a prima facie case of contempt after the Director General failed to reinstate the employees despite an explicit stay on their termination orders.
The case involves a group of employees whose appointments, made in 2015, were terminated following an inquiry that alleged irregularities in the selection process. The High Court had subsequently stayed the termination, leading to the present contempt proceedings.
Background of the Case
The matter originates from appointments made to various Scientific/Technical and Ministerial cadre posts at UPCAR in 2015. The process began with a request to the State Government for approval to fill vacancies on May 16, 2014, which was granted by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for 20 posts on July 4, 2014. Following an advertisement on October 1, 2014, a selection process involving a written examination and interviews was conducted, and appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates on April 9, 2015.
In 2017, the State Government initiated an inquiry into the selection process. The inquiry report, submitted on March 8, 2019, cited several irregularities. Based on this report, the Under Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Research, Government of U.P., issued a letter on July 4, 2019, directing UPCAR to issue “speaking termination order[s]” against the candidates selected in 2015 and to submit a compliance report within 25 days.
Consequently, the then Director General of UPCAR passed an order on August 14, 2020, cancelling the appointments of the applicants.
First Round of Litigation
The affected employees challenged the termination order in a series of writ petitions before the High Court. In a leading judgment dated May 16, 2023, in Writ-A No. 18951 of 2020, the court quashed the termination order of August 14, 2020. The court found that the order was passed “solely based upon the report dated 4.7.2019 without providing either a copy of the report or any opportunity of hearing.” The court ruled that it was “mandatory on the part of the respondents to at least have provided the material collected against the petitioners” and to give them a “proper opportunity of hearing.”
While quashing the order, the court granted liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after supplying the inquiry report and affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Second Termination and Subsequent Stay
Following the High Court’s order, show-cause notices were issued to the employees. However, on February 13, 2024, the current Director General, Dr. Sanjay Singh, passed a new order terminating the services of the applicants, allegedly without properly considering their replies and in terms of the earlier government direction of July 4, 2019.
The employees again approached the High Court, challenging both the original government direction of July 4, 2019, and the new termination order of February 13, 2024. In Writ-A No. 5091 of 2024, after hearing counsel for all parties, the court passed an interim order on July 9, 2024, staying the operation of both the impugned orders.
Arguments in the Contempt Proceedings
The present contempt applications were filed alleging that despite the clear stay order of July 9, 2024, the applicants were not allowed to resume their duties.
Counsel for the Applicants, led by Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, argued that the non-compliance was a willful disobedience of the court’s order. They submitted that the interim stay was granted after hearing both sides and that the respondent’s subsequent filing of a stay vacation application did not absolve them of the duty to comply. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Anantdeep Singh Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Anr., it was argued that once a termination order is stayed, the employee is deemed to be in service.
Counsel for the Respondent, Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, argued against the contempt proceedings. He submitted that there was evidence of “ghost interview[s]” in the selection process. He contended that since a stay vacation application was pending before the writ court, the contempt proceedings should be deferred, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.B. Shiradkar & Anr. Vs. Chandra Bhan Singh. He also argued that the writ court’s order only stayed the termination and did not contain a specific direction for allowing the applicants to join their duties.
Court’s Analysis and Framing of Charge
Justice Rajeev Singh observed that the facts were undisputed: the initial termination was set aside, a fresh termination order was passed, and this new order, along with the original government directive, was stayed by the writ court on July 9, 2024.
The court noted that while the respondent had filed a stay vacation application, no application had been moved to expedite the hearing of the main writ petition. Furthermore, a previous application by the respondent to defer the contempt proceedings had already been rejected by the court on May 19, 2025.
Finding the arguments for deferment unconvincing and observing a prima facie case of non-compliance, the court proceeded to frame a charge against the respondent under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court framed the following charge:
“Why the respondent/contemnor- Dr. Sanjay Singh, Director General, U.P. Council of Agricultural Research, Lucknow, be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 09.07.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 5091 of 2024, order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 2760 of 2024 and order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 2758 of 2024.”
The court has directed Dr. Sanjay Singh to file a reply to the charge and has ordered his personal presence on the next date of hearing, scheduled for August 18, 2025.
