The Uttarakhand High Court recently dismissed a contempt petition, holding that there was no willful disobedience of its earlier order directing the issuance of vigilance clearance to a petitioner selected for deputation to AIIMS Rajkot.

The case involved Vinay Sharma, an employee of IIM Kashipur, who was under suspension when selected as Registrar at AIIMS Rajkot. His suspension was stayed by the High Court in a previous order.

However, Sharma alleged that he was not relieved from his post, and the vigilance clearance required for deputation was not issued properly, prompting him to seek contempt proceedings against the concerned officials.

His counsel argued that the clearance was not issued in the correct format as directed by the Court, particularly noting that the certificate lacked a proper affirmation of integrity. According to him, this deviation led to the rejection of Sharma’s appointment at AIIMS Rajkot. He sought only contempt action in the present petition.

On the other hand, the respondents maintained that the clearance had been issued in the prescribed format, with relevant factual details. They clarified that while the certificate did not affirm integrity due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings, it stated that integrity would be certified "in due course.

The High Court examined the matter in detail and noted that the clearance had indeed been issued, albeit with a factual mention of the pending inquiry.

Emphasizing that "every disobedience is not contempt," the Court said contempt action requires clear wilful defiance of a judicial order.

Finding that the respondents had substantially complied with its earlier direction, the Court concluded that there was no deliberate attempt to defy its order.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the contempt petitions, reiterating that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless there is a conscious disregard of the Court’s authority.

Case Title: Vinay Sharma v. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay
Case No.: Civil Contempt Petition No. 360 of 2024