Disposed¶43

Kadavath Hari Singh v. Sri. Jayender Kumar Sharma

Telangana HC6 Jan 2026CC/1241/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC contempt case 1241/2025 (decided 06.01.2026, T. Madhavi Devi J.): alleged willful disobedience of order dated 31.12.2024 in W.P.No.15714 of 2020 directing review of bank employee's dismissal (05.03.2013) after criminal acquittal (27.06.2018, C.C.No.636); respondents passed speaking order dated 20.03.2025 rejecting reinstatement; held no contempt absent deliberate and willful violation despite delay; Rule 27 Contempt of Courts Rules inapplicable; C.C.No.784 of 2023 and L.P.A.No.1 of 2020 distinguished; case closed with liberty to challenge review order; Sections 10-12 Contempt of Courts Act; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 20.03.2025 as observed by the Court; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand dismissed.

Kadavath Hari Singh Vs Sri. Jayender Kumar Sharma — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed willful violation and deliberate disobedience of this Court's order dated 31.12.2024 in W.P.No.15714 of 2020 (directing review of the dismissal in light of the criminal court acquittal), such as to punish them for contempt. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

Pursuant to this Court's directions in W.P.No.15714 of 2020, the respondents have now passed a detailed and reasoned speaking order dated 20.03.2025 (rejecting the request for reinstatement, not accepted by the Review Committee), so the direction to review stood complied with.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Though there was a delay in passing of the final orders, unless and until the violation of the Court's order is deliberate and willful, the Court cannot pass orders of contempt.

¶42

Key takeaways

Rule 27 of the Contempt of Court Rules, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, would not apply to the present case.ratio¶42
The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner (including C.C.No.784 of 2023 and L.P.A.No.1 of 2020) are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to this case.ratio¶42
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order dated 20.03.2025, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No. 1241 of 2025, High Court for the State of Telangana (T. Madhavi Devi, J.), decided 06.01.2026 — Filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging willful violation of the writ court's order dated 31.12.2024 in W.P.No.15714 of 2020, which had directed the respondents (State Bank of India officials) to review the petitioner's dismissal dated 05.03.2013 in the light of his acquittal dated 27.06.2018 in C.C.No.636. In compliance, respondents passed a detailed and reasoned speaking order dated 20.03.2025 rejecting reinstatement. Held: the direction stood complied with; though there was delay, absent deliberate and willful violation no orders of contempt can be passed; Rule 27 of the Contempt of Courts Rules does not apply and the decisions relied on by the petitioner (C.C.No.784 of 2023; L.P.A.No.1 of 2020) are distinguishable on facts. Contempt case closed with liberty to challenge the order dated 20.03.2025 in appropriate proceedings; no costs.

¶1

N THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT

¶2

TUESDAY,THE^{SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY SIX}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICET.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶5

co PT CASE NO:124'l O 2025

¶6

Contempt^{Caseunder Section10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts} Act, to punish the^Res for willful violation^{and disobedience} of this Court order^{dated31-12-2024 in W.P. 15714 of 2O20}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kadavath Hari Singh,^S/o Jagya, aged about 54^{years, Occ. Nil F/o H.No.} 3-10-33712, Radio Station,^Vi vekarianda Nagar, N^yal kal^{Raod,Nizamabad District-} PETITIONER 503 001

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Sri. Javender Kumar Sharma, S/o^{Not known, Occ. Deputy General Manager} and C6O. Hn Deoartment State^{Bank of lndia, O/o. Local Head Office,} 4th Floor,'Bank Street,^{Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095.}

¶11

Sri. Raiesh Kumar, S/o^{Not known,occ. chief General Marlger andAppellate} - niiindi',tfttai. eiirt of lndia, o/o. LHo, Hvderabad, Koti, Hvderabad, Telangana.

¶12

3.Sri.PradeepKumar,S/oNotknown,Occ.BranchManager,O/o'SBlBodhan Branch, Bodhan,^{NizambadDistrict.}

¶13

...CONTEMNORS/^ResPondents

¶14

Counset for the Petitioner:^{SRl.PRABHAKARCHIKKUDU}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent:^{M/s.PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES}

¶16

The Gourt made^{the following ORDER:}

¶17

IN^'I'[-IE T{IGH COUR'I I..-OR THE S'I'ATE OF- TELANGANA AT HYDERABAT)

¶18

I'HE TIONOUI{AI}I-E SMT. JTJSTICT]'T. M,\DHAVI D[]VI

¶19

CON'I'I,]N{ P'I' CAS E No.l24l OF' 2025

¶20

Datcd : &.01.2026

¶21

Bet'ween:

¶22

Kadaratl-L Hari Singh

¶23

...Petitioner

¶24

AND

¶25

Sri Ja-,"ender Kurnar Sharma S/o. Not knor,vn, Occ: DcJruty Gcncral Managcr & CDO. I IIt Depaftnrcnr. State []ank of Irrdia, O/o Local I{ead Office,

¶26

,+"' [tloor'. Banl< Street. I(oti, I lyderabad and t\vo othcrs.

¶27

... Respondents

¶28

OITDE,R

¶29

'l'h is conte mpt case is t-rled alleging non-conlpliance and clciibcrat,-' disoberliencc ol- the order of this Courr dated 31.12.2014 passed in W.P.No. I 57 l4 of 2020.

¶30

1'fre petitioner was initially appointcd as Clerl<-cunr-Cashier ip Statc llanl< o[' In.lia ancl rias subseqLlentl] promotecl. \ihile he w,as uorking as Manager at Nizarnabad, certain allegations wL.rc rlaclc a-uaiust him, pursLlant to which he was ltlaced unclcr suspension ancl disciplinary proccediugs were initiated against him. Vicle order clated ' ' [5.03.2013, the petitioner was di'smissed frorn service. The saicl

¶31

I'N4D,J cc r21r 2025

¶32

¶33

dismissal order was challenged befbre this Court in^{W.P.No.7l52of} 2013, however, the same was dismissed as infructuous.^{Subsequently,} thc criminal case registered against the pctitiorter^{ended in his accluittal} by iudgment dated 27.06.2018 in C.C.No.636 oi^{2011. '[-lierc[orc, thc} petitioner filed W.P.No.l57l4 of 2020 seeking reconsideration of^the dismissal order in the light of the^jud-ernerrt itr^(lrirninal Court.^Vide ordcr dated 31.12.2024. this Court^{had directed the rcspondentsto} review the dismissal order in the light of^{thc judgnrent ol'theCrinrinal} Court dated 27.06.2018^passed in C.C.No.636^{of 2012. 1'he petitioner} clairns to have subrnitted a representation^{to the respondentsalong witha} copy of the order of this Court^on 06.01.2025.^{Since the rcspotrderrtsdid} not pass any orders thereon, the^{petitionerIlled the prescntContempt} Case on 02.05.2025.

¶34

On service of notice, the^{respoudcutshave appearcdand tjlcd a} counter affidavit enclosing therewith a^{cop)' ol- the orderdated} 20.03.2025 passed by the^{appellate/revieu,authoritl,. whiclt was} corrrmunicated to the^{petitioner vide letter dated 28.0:i.2015.Accorditr.q} to the respondents, there^{is complianceu'iththe direction of this Court} and the request of the petitioner for^{reinstatementhas not been accepted}

¶35

I'MD.J cc t24t 2025

¶36

¶37

by the Revieu,Cornmittee.^'l'herefore, according to the respondents there is no vic,lation of the order of this Court

¶38

[,earned counsel lor the petitioner. however. submitted that the respond,:nts have not considered the^judgrnent of the Criminal Court and have summarily rejected the case of the petitioner and therefore, it is in clcar coirten'lpt ol- the order of this Court and therefore. the respondents should h,e lrtrrrished under the Conlernpt of Courts Act. l,earned courrrscl fbr the lletitioner placed rcliance uporl Rule 27 of^(--onternpt of^(lourts Rules to subrnit that, in order to do complete justice, this Court can pass &fl)/ spprrspr:iate orders in a contempt case as well. He also placed reliance upon the order of this Court in C.C.No.784 of 2023 dated i0.07.2()24 in sr,rpport of the contention that directions can be issued everr irr conternpl case to do complete justice. t{e also referred to tlrc dccision ol'thc [)ivision []crrch o1'this Cor-rrt in I..P.A.No.l of 2020 datcd 02.03.2(120 in support of his contentions

¶39

Having regard to the rival contentions and the lltaterial on record. this Court l'inds that ordcr of dismissal was initially not challenged by thc petitionerr and it rryas onlv after his acquittal in the criminal case that he has t-rlecl W.P.No.l5714 of 2020 and therefore, this Court had directed thc rcsp<lttdctrts to reconside:r the case of thc pctitioncr in the light of the

¶40

TMD.J cc t24t_2025

¶41

¶42

judgment of, the criminar court. pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have now passed a detailed and reasoned speaking order dated 20-03.2025. Though there is a delay in passing of the finar orcrcr.s. urrless and until it is deliberate and willlul violation of the order ol. this c'ourt. this court cannclt pass orders of contempt. Rule 27 o[ trre contempt of court Rules relied upon by the learned counsel lor the petitioner would not apply to the present case and the clecisions reliecl upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also distinguishable on f'acts and are not applicarrre to this case. If the petitioner is aggrievecr hy. tlre speaking order dated 20.03.2025, he is at liberry ro challenge rhc same in accordance with raw in appropriate proceedings.

¶43

Accordingly, this conternpt case is closed ,uvith liberty, to rhc. petitioner to challenge the order dated 20.03.2025 as observed abo'e. 'l'here shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Pending miscellancous petitions, if ar1y, shall also starrcl disnrissed.

¶45

Sd/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI REGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE COPYII

¶47

OFFICER

¶48

To, 1. One CC to SRI 2. One CC to SRl. PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU, Advocate [OpUC] PEARL LAW ASSOCTATES Advocate iOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies

¶49

kul/kamw