# Deepak Dewvedi & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1242 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-10-06 - **Case number:** Writ-A No. 7450 of 2023 - **Bench:** Abdul Moin - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-dewvedi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49319 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Practice and Procedure - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Scope - Non-compliance of the order of the Supreme Court alleged - How far High Court has power to issue writ for compliance of the order of Supreme Court - Held, once the judgement has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is non compliance of the same as such it is always open for the petitioners to file a contempt petition but there cannot be any occasion for the High Court to have the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court complied with - In case of noncompliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the power is vested in Supreme Court itself to take 10 All. Deepak Dewvedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1243 action in contempt and not by this Court. (Para 7 and 9) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1) List of Cases cited: ## Text 1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court in not allowing further proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet, is unsustainable". (25) We are in full agreement with the aforesaid proposition of law as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/State and technically the matter ought to have been remanded to the Tribunal for re-consideration on the said aspect. (26) As a sequel to the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set-aside. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated and is found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it is alleged that during the course of enquiry, no date, time and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for oral evidence/ cross-examination and the Enquiry Officer submitted its report merely on the basis of written reply of the respondent no.1/employee, this Court remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated and to proceed with the enquiry in compliance of Rule 7(vii) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1999 after following due principles of natural justice. (27) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, keeping in view that the issue is of the year 2009. (28) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ---------- (2023) 10 ILRA 1242 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 06.10.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. Writ-A No. 7450 of 2023 Deepak Dewvedi & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sharad Pathak, Piyush Pathak Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh, Ran Vijay Singh A. Practice and Procedure - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Scope - Non-compliance of the order of the Supreme Court alleged - How far High Court has power to issue writ for compliance of the order of Supreme Court - Held, once the judgement has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is non compliance of the same as such it is always open for the petitioners to file a contempt petition but there cannot be any occasion for the High Court to have the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court complied with - In case of noncompliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the power is vested in Supreme Court itself to take 10 All. Deepak Dewvedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1243 action in contempt and not by this Court. (Para 7 and 9) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1) List of Cases cited: 1. Writ C No. 7052 of 2020; Ajaypal Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 27.02.2020 2. Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs C. Muddaiah; (2007) 7 SCC 689 3. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar & anr.; (2014) 8 SCC 273 (Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 & 4, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. The sole question which arises for consideration before this Court is that when an order has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the petitioners as to whether non-compliance of the same can be seen by the High Court. 3. The case set forth by the petitioners is that against the cancellation of their appointment, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was numbered as Writ Petition (Civil) 546 of 2021. It was connected with a bunch of petitions leading being Writ Petition No. 378 of 2021 in re: Rahul Kumar and others vs State of U.P. and others. 4. The said writ petition was decided vide the judgement and order dated 29.06.2021, a copy of which is annexure 24 to the petition, with certain observations which may not detain the Court. As the order was not complied with the petitioners were constrained to file Contempt Petition (C) No. 815 of 2021 in re: Poonam Yadav vs Deepak Kumar and others which was disposed of vide the order dated 22.10.2021, a copy of which is annexure 26 to the petition, permitting the petitioners to prefer appropriate representations before the authorities and the representations made were required to be considered by the authorities by a reasoned and speaking order. Again, when the said representations were not decided the petitioners filed a contempt petition no. 400-402 of 2022 in re: Poonam Yadav and others vs Deepak Kumar and others and Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.08.2022, a copy of which is annexure 28 to the petition, was of the view that it would not be possible for the Court to keep issuing directions but observed that the pending representations be dealt with at the earliest. 5. Now the petitioners are before this Court claiming that although they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 546 of 2021 and directions were issued vide judgement and order dated 26.09.2021 yet another set of petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1074 of 2022 in re: Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and others and this Court vide the judgement and order dated 14.03.2022, a copy of which is annexure 36 to the petition, has quashed cancellation of appointment order and has directed for his continuance in service. He also contends that various other judgements have been passed by the Writ Court with respect to the persons similarly circumstanced consequently there cannot be any occasion 1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES for the respondents to not extend the benefit of those judgements passed in the case of Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi (supra) and other matters as decided by this Court to the petitioners also. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what emerges is that in fact the petitioners despite having an order in their favour by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition No. 546 of 2021 and two decisions in the contempt petitions filed by them basically want compliance of the order that has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. No judgement to the effect that a writ can be issued by the High Court for compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been brought to the notice of this Court. Even otherwise there cannot be any judgment to the said effect in as much as once the judgement has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is non compliance of the same as such it is always open for the petitioners to file a contempt petition but there cannot be any occasion for the High Court to have the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court complied with. 8. In this regard it would be apt to refer to a division bench judgement of this Court passed in Writ C No. 7052 of 2020 in re: Ajaypal Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others decided on 27.02.2020 wherein it was held as under: "2. Petitioner is seeking compliance of direction of Full Bench in Gajraj and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1(FB). We are informed that aforesaid judgement has also been confirmed by Supreme Court and if there is any non compliance thereof, no writ petition lies. Remedy lies to petitioner to file contempt proceedings before appropriate forum. Further in case of non compliance of judgement of Supreme court, the power is vested in Supreme Court itself to take action for contempt and not to this Court. 3. The relief prayed for by petitioners therefore, cannot be granted at this stage, since no mandamus can be issued, which has already been issued. Petitioners may take steps for compliance thereof by taking steps as permissible in law. 4. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed." 9. From perusal of the aforesaid judgement it emerges that the division bench of this Court has categorically held that in case of non-compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court the power is vested in Supreme Court itself to take action in contempt and not by this Court. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689. 11. Perusal of the said judgement would indicate that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a direction is issued by a competent Court it is to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. 12. There can be no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. However in the instant case it would be Hon'ble Supreme 10 All. Manoj Kumar Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1245 Court which is to have its order complied with in as much as there cannot be any occasion for a contempt petition to be filed in the High Court for compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. As an abundant precaution the Court may take notice of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 wherein while delivering the aforesaid judgement it was held that in case of noncompliance of its directions, the concerned police officers, apart from departmental action, shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be initiated before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 14. In the instant case there is no direction issued by Hon'ble Apex Court while rendering the judgement and order dated 29.06.2021 that any non-compliance would be seen by the High Court having territorial jurisdiction and thus there cannot be any question of entertaining the instant writ petition. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue other remedies as may be available to them. ---------- (2023) 10 ILRA 1245 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. Writ-A No. 11761 of 2023 Manoj Kumar Katiyar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dhananjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Ajeet Singh A. Service Law - Constitution of India - Article 311(2), Proviso - Conviction u/s 302/34 IPC - Dismissal from service - Neither enquiry was conducted nor conduct leading to conviction was considered - Effect - Circumstance when the dismissal can be made without an enquiry - Held, the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat either should have conducted inquiry by associating the petitioner and affording him opportunity of hearing and only thereafter could have passed the order thereby dismissing petitioner from service or if the disciplinary authority wanted to pass order in terms of proviso appended to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India thereby dismissing the petitioner from service without holding inquiry, then he could have done so only by considering the conduct which led to conviction of the petitioner. (Para 22) Writ petition allowed. (E-1) List of Cases cited: 1. U.O.I. Vs Tulsi Ram Patel; (1985) 3 SCC 398 2. Shyam Narayan Shukla Vs St. of U.P.; 1988 (6) LCD 530 3. Sadanand Mishra Vs St. of U.P.; 1993 LCD 70 4. Ram Kishan Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2020 (1) ADJ 862 (Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 & 3.