✦ High Court of India · 01 Nov 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 01 Nov 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

01 Nov 2025

Bench

SINGLE

Length

2,399 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India §12 and 2 Constitution of India Contempt of Courts Act 1971

Cited in this judgment

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1204/2025 VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in-person, through Vc. versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R % 01.11.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeks the following prayers: - “a) Initiate proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 12 and 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of (1) the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment titled Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2767 read with the binding Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2003 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, and, the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment titled T.C. Basappa v T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, through acts of omission and commission subsequent to Order dated 20.4.2012 passed in CM No. 4440 of 2012 in WP (C) No. 6669 of 2007; (b) Direct the Respondent to forthwith open the sealed cover and grant consequential benefits in accordance with the recommendations therein; (c) Award exemplary or compensatory costs to the Petitioner in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:18:46 light of the prolonged wilful disobedience spanning over a decade.” 3. The present petition has been preferred alleging wilful and continuous disobedience of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Mahinder Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2767 and T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, as well as the Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2003 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, through acts of “omission and commission”, subsequent to passing of the order dated 20.04.2012 in C.M. No. 4440/2012 in W.P. (C) No. 6669/2007. 4. At this stage, it will be apposite to reproduce the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the learned Division Bench in C.M. No. 4440/2012 in W.P. (C) No. 6669/2007: - “CM No.4440/2012 1. It is urged by the petitioner that pertaining to the instant writ petition where issue of pending recommendations pertaining to the promotion of the petitioner which were put in a sealed cover and thereby impacting the scale of pay in which petitioner had to be placed needs a reconsideration for the reason charge-sheet dated July 06, 1988 has ultimately resulted in an order dated March 28, 2012 being passed restraining State of Maharashtra to proceed ahead with the charge-sheet dated July 06, 1988. 2. Petitioner states that the subject matter of the Original Applications before the Administrative Tribunal, which became subject matter in the instant writ petition pertained to the dates January 03, 1986, July 01, 1991, July 01, 1995 and July 01, 1997, all dates after July 06, 1988 but prior to May 04, 1988 and August 05, 1998, when two subsequent charge- sheets were issued. 3. It is urged that it is settled law that issue pertaining to sealed cover, placement as also opening, have to be considered with reference to the circumstances at the time when decision was taken to place in the sealed cover the recommendations pertaining to a civil servant facing inquiry and pertaining to the terminus of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:18:46 inquiry in question. 4. In other words, it is urged that the charge-sheets dated May 04, 1988 and October 05, 1988 can have no bearing with respect to the petitioner being entitled to Junior Administrative Grade, Selection Grade and Super Time Scale. 5. Issue notice to the non-applicants returnable before the learned Registrar (Appeals) for July 13, 2012. 6. The respondent No.2 would be served at two addresses: (i) Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai- 400032, and (ii) Principal Secretary and Special Commissioner, Government of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Sadan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001. 7. After service is effected and if the respondents appear, pleadings would be completed and the application would be listed in Court. 8. If respondents choose to remain ex-parte after they are served, the application would be listed before the Court as it is. 9. List before the Registrar (Appeals) on July 13, 3012.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order would reflect that the learned Division Bench had referred to an order dated 28.03.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2563/2007. 6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had earlier filed a Cont. Cas. (C) No. 380/2025 titled as ‘Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Mrs. Sujata Saunik’, alleging willful disobedience of the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2012 in C.M. No. 19106/2011 in W.P. (C) No. 2563/2007. 7. The said contempt petition was disposed of by learned coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025 in the following terms: - “1. Pursuant to the previous order, Mr. J. Rajesh, Advocate, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court in understanding the plea by the petitioner, is present in Court. Though, he fairly states that after his interaction with the petitioner, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:18:46 the petitioner who is a senior citizen, expressed his disinclination for his case to be presented by the Amicus Curiae, at the insistence of the Court, Mr. J. Rajesh, Amicus Curiae has broadly explained the facts and circumstances in the said matter. 2. The petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 28th March 2012 passed by the Division Bench which related to a charge-sheet dated 06th July 1988 issued to the petitioner. 3. The issue canvassed by the petitioner was that whether it was permissible in law that the inquiry be continued pursuant to the chargesheet, keeping in view the fact that pertaining to another inquiry, a penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner, in the year 1998. 4. Petitioner has urged that neither an inquiry could be continued nor a penalty could be imposed. 5. In this context, the Division Bench passed the following orders: 6. The petitioner, who is present in-person, through VC, seeks to draw attention of the Court to decision in Delhi Jal Board v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:18:46 Mahinder Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 210, where there was an issue relating to the opening of the sealed cover prepared by the DPC notwithstanding the pendency of later disciplinary case. 7. The Court has considered the submissions which have been made in this regard and in the opinion of this Court, the contempt petition cannot subsist on a plea of this nature, as canvassed by the petitioner and certainly not in the context of the Division Bench’s order dated 28th March 2012, aside from the fact that this kind of a plea is extremely delayed and barred by limitation. 8. Counsel for State of Maharashtra appears on advance notice and states that an application has been filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench seeking positive directions, which is now listed on 08th July 2025. 9. Liberty has already been exercised by the petitioner to canvass his grievances in accordance with law. 10. The contempt petition cannot subsist. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 12. A note of appreciation for the efforts made by Mr. J. Rajesh, Amicus for assisting the Court in the matter. 13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.” 8. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed C.M. No. 38052/2025 in Cont. Cas (C) No. 380/2025, seeking recall of the order dated 20.05.2025, and the same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 22.08.2025, by observing as under: CM APPL. 38052/2025 (Recall of order dated 20.05.2025). 1. This application has been filed by petitioner for recall of order dated 20th May 2025. 2. The order of 20th May 2025 is self-explanatory and does not require any further clarification or modification. 3. Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, petitioner in person, submits that the said order is a ‘nullity’ as it in accordance with the settled law. If he wishes to assail the order passed by this Bench, he is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, as may be advised. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:18:46

4. Application is accordingly disposed of. 9. The petitioner who appears in-person, has urged that the present petition is distinct from the earlier one, on account of the fact that the prayer in the present petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board (supra). Petitioner further places reliance upon the aforesaid judgment of Delhi Jal Board (supra), on the following paragraph: - “5. The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration. The sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. But the findings of the disciplinary inquiry exonerating the officer would have to be given effect to as they obviously relate back to the date on which the charges are framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, it is as if the officer had not been subjected to any disciplinary inquiry. The sealed cover procedure was envisaged under the rules to give benefit of any assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of such an officer, if he had been found fit for promotion and if he was later exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry which was pending at the time when DPC met. The mere fact that by the time the disciplinary proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed cover was opened to give effect to it, another departmental enquiry was started by the Department, would not, in our view, come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection. There is, therefore, no question of referring the matter to a larger Bench.” 10. It is submitted that the continuous disobedience of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would be contempt of Court. The This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:18:46 petitioner, further, relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priya Gupta vs. Addl. Secretary, (2013) 11 SCC 404, and particularly on para 25, which reads as under: - “25. Equally, the contemnor cannot draw any advantage from the judgment of this Court in the case of Packraft (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director V.S. Mann v. U.P.F.C. through its M.D. R.M. Sethi and Others [(1996) 1 SCC 304] as that was a judgment on its own facts and the Court did not state any absolute proposition of law. We may notice that in that case, the applicant had participated in the sale of the property which was alleged to have been sold contrary to the guidelines issued by the Court and had not taken any steps during that period. Since, such steps could be corrected by adopting the procedure of judicial review, the Court did not initiate the contempt proceedings. The law is well settled that mere availability of another legal proceeding does not debar invocation of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Even where execution petitions are filed or an order of injunction is issued and if during the course of the proceedings, the act or conduct of a non-applicant may be such which would invite the proceedings under the Act then such proceedings would not be debarred.” 11. This Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, as well as perused the records. The order dated 20.04.2012, as reproduced hereinbefore, does not give any directions to any authority, for which reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board (supra). Contempt proceedings for non compliance of an order dated 28.03.2012 in C.M. No. 19106/2011 in W.P. (C) No. 2563/2007 was also filed by the petitioner, placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of Delhi Jal Board (supra), and the same was dealt by the learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the earlier contempt petition filed on behalf of the petitioner vide the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2025. 12. In these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed and disposed of. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:18:46

13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith. AMIT SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 1, 2025/kr/db

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India