AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Despite the indulgence granted to the appellants from time to time, the appellants remain determined not to obey the Court’s order.
In this matter, by our order dated 03.08.2026, we had declined the appellants’ blanket interim relief and directed them to reconsider the quantum of punishment within four weeks and to place the decision before the Court by the next date.
Instead of complying with the order, the appellants filed a very lengthy but quite frivolous application for modification.
The Court also dismissed it by order dated 16.09.2026. The contents of our order dated 16.09.026 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
“1.Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C)-I, for the appellants and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate, who appears along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate, and Ms. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate, for the respondent.
2.By our order dated 03.08.2026, we declined the appellants’ blanket interim relief and directed them to reconsider the quantum of punishment within four weeks and to place the decision before this Court by the next date.
3.Looking into the history of the matter and the fact that the State had failed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, despite there being no interim relief granted by any Court, we had clarified that, under no circumstances, should the implementation of our direction be delayed or postponed. We had also indicated that, if the decision was postponed, we would consider whether an order should be passed for payment of salary to the respondent herein.
4.Now, a very lengthy application for modification of this order has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants admits that I.A. is not a petition for review. In the modification application, several arguments are raised.
5.An application for modification is different from an application for review. Besides, neither a review petition nor an application for modification should be filed with the intent to reargue the matter.
6.The officer, who has filed an affidavit in support of the aforesaid interlocutory application, has repeatedly stated in the application that he has the greatest respect for the orders of this Court and has no intention of disobeying them. However, these words ring hollow, as despite there being no interim orders, the appellants have refused to comply with the orders of this Court.
7.The filing of this application for modification is yet another instance, or rather a plea, of non-compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge or, in the present matter, our order dated 03.08.2026. On the grounds alleged, no case is made out for modification.
8.Accordingly, I.A. No. 12916 of 2026 filed for modification is dismissed. 9. Mr Ratnesh Kumar submits that within a week from today, this Court’s order dated 03.08.2026 will be complied with and the decision will be placed before this Court. He submitted, however, that such compliance would be without prejudice to the contentions in the LPA. We record Mr Ratnesh Kumar’s submission, which we take as having been made on behalf of the appellants, that the order would be complied with within a week from today.
10.Accordingly, while we dismiss I.A. No. 12916 of 2026, we place the main matter under the heading ‘Orders’ on 28.09.2026.”
In paragraph 9 of our above order, Mr Ratnesh Kumar submitted that within a week from today, the Court's order would be complied with. This was accepted.
Today, Mr Ratnesh Kumar once again seeks time for compliance. To this end, I.A. No.13931 of 2026 has been filed for extension of time, which, again, is an attempt to re-argue the matter or raise the same pleas that were rejected when modification of the order was sought.
The appellants have referred to “administrative procedures and structural complexities” and sought four weeks' time. Prima facie, this is an abuse and a clear attempt to overreach this Court’s order.
The order, which is impugned in this appeal, was made on 14.03.2024. Without any interim relief, the appellants have not complied with the Court's order for almost 30 months.
After this appeal was filed and blanket interim relief was refused, it was expected that the order would be complied with without prejudice. Instead, a lengthy modification application was filed. After that was dismissed, a solemn assurance was given to the Court that a decision would be taken within a week.
No decision was taken, and now, citing frivolous reasons, an extension is sought. This leaves us with no option but to issue a show-cause notice as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against the Superintendent of Police at Garhwa.
Accordingly, we issue notice to the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him.
This notice is now made returnable on 07th of October 2026. The Superintendent of Police must file a response on or before the next date by giving an advance copy to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Further, the impugned order directs the respondent's reinstatement. Till date, the respondent has not been reinstated. The direction to reconsider the quantum of penalty has also not been complied with. Such direction could always have been complied with without prejudice.
Accordingly, as indicated in the earlier orders, by way of interim relief, we direct the appellants to allow the respondent to join on duty from 5th of October 2026. In any event, even if the appellants, in defiance of the Court’s orders, do not allow the respondent to join duty, the appellants must pay the respondent the salary of the post to which he is directed to be reinstated.
Mr Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, states that on the next date, Mr Ashutosh Shekhar, Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, will appear in the matter personally. This statement is accepted.
List this matter on 7 October 2026 at 2.15 pm.