Synopsis

The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) alleging contempt by the respondents for failing to furnish specific orders dated 11 November 2016 and 18 November 2016 as directed by the Tribunal. The respondents supplied office orders dated 27 December 2016, which showed that the petitioners’ services were terminated with effect from those very dates (11 November 2016 and 18 November 2016). The Tribunal held that there was substantial compliance and closed the contempt proceedings. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that: (i) the direction to produce orders of those specific dates was inadvertent – no such separate orders existed; (ii) the respondents had complied substantively by producing the termination orders; (iii) the petitioners’ allegation that the supplied orders were fabricated is not a matter for contempt proceedings.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 23rd April 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 1915/2020 (unreported)

Core Law: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Principles of contempt jurisdiction

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

W.p.(c) 1915 of 2020 & cm appl. 37653 of 2021

Gourav kumar katara and anr (petitioners) vs. Secretary, department of personnel and training and ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice c. hari shankar and hon’ble mr. justice om prakash shukla (division bench)

Date: 23rd april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Contempt of courts act, 1971 – section 2(b) (definition of civil contempt), section 12 (punishment for contempt)

• Administrative tribunals act, 1985 – section 17 (tribunal’s power to punish for contempt)

• Service law – termination of contractual employees

Subject matter of the judgment:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.