The Orissa High Court on Monday (August 24) issued contempt notice to the former Director General of Police (DGP) Yogesh Bahadur Khurania over repeated failure to comply with an order of the Court directing reinstatement of a female Sub-Inspector (SI), and misleading the Court by suppressing the department's intention to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court against such order.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra was hearing a contempt petition filed by the petitioner Sagarika Parida. It was the case of the petitioner that at the time of securing her employment as a Police SI, she had made a statement in the Verification Roll indicating therein that she was never an accused in any criminal case nor had she ever been in prison.

Subsequently, it was detected by the authorities that three criminal cases were registered against her, one of which ended in acquittal by an order passed by JMFC, Kujanga. The said acquittal order was made on August 04, 2017 whereas the Verification Roll was furnished by the petitioner on August 21, 2017. So far as the other criminal cases were concerned, those were registered under Sections 341/294/323/506/354/34 of the IPC and were also disposed of either at the National Lok Adalat level or due lack of evidence against her.

Having found such suppression of criminal antecedents, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters) passed an order dated 12.11.2020 under the Police Manual Rule-673, discharging the petitioner from service. Against such order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was ultimately allowed on 25.09.2025 with the following direction–

“The Opposite Party No.3 is directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential service and financial benefits. It is further directed that the period of discharge of the Petitioner be treated as “On Duty” and the financial benefits accruing in favour of the Petitioner for the said period be also calculated and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two months hence.”

The authorities defaulted in implementing the aforesaid order within the time-frame, for which the petitioner filed this contempt petition. When the response was sought from the authorities, they apprised the Court about pendency of a writ appeal against the decision of the Single Judge in the writ petition. Therefore, even though no interim stay order was passed by the Division Bench, the Court deemed it fit to grant time till the disposal of the writ appeal.

The writ appeal was disposed of on June 22, 2026 [State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sagarika Parida & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 68] by affirming the order made in the writ petition. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus–

“As culled out from the aforementioned reports, in the event the respondent did not have the knowledge of the criminal case pending against her, such negative disclosure should not act against her inviting a serious penal consequences i.e. removal/termination from service…Our attention is drawn to a report of the Additional DCP, Crime, Commissionerate Headquarters, Bhubaneswar dated 22nd February, 2019, where the stand of the respondent that she was not aware of any such case and even the disposal thereof in the form of an acquittal was in her absence were found to be true and correct. It was observed in the said report that the respondent did not have the knowledge of the registration of those cases against her and, therefore, the information so furnished cannot be said to be false.”

When the contempt hearing was posted on 03.07.2026, the State Counsel undertook to file compliance affidavit. By an affidavit dated 29.07.2026, it was informed to the Court that the matter is under active consideration of the Law Department and the contemnor [the then DGP Mr. Khurania] be given two months' time for taking appropriate legal steps with regard to compliance of the impugned order and to complete the entire process.

When the case was taken up on Monday, the Additional Government Advocate placed an instruction received from the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) whereby it was stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed by the State against the order of the Division Bench in the writ appeal. The Court was further prayed to halt the contempt proceedings since the SLP is now sub judice before the Apex Court.

Justice Mishra took severe exception to such response, especially keeping in view the fact that the State Counsel had undertaken to file compliance affidavit on the last date and did not clearly inform the Court about the department's intention to file an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.

The Judge, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Asit Kumar Das v. J. Panda, Chief Post Master General & Ors. (2020) held that pendency of a proceeding before the Supreme Court, in absence of any interim order of stay, cannot be a ground to stall a contempt proceeding.

The State Counsel further apprised the Court about the superannuation of Mr. Khurania in the meantime. He thus urged that the contempt proceeding be dropped as the contemnor is no more the incumbent in the post of DGP, and the in-charge DGP had not been impleaded as a party.

The Court cited Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 209 to hold that apart from the contemnor, the persons responsible for implementation of the Court's order are also liable to be prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of the Court's order, even if they were not party to the original proceeding or party to the contempt proceeding.

Justice Mishra lamented that the contemnor “tactfully” misled the Court instead of making clear the intention to file an SLP against the Division Bench's order. He thus held that notwithstanding the retirement of the former police chief, he can still be held liable along with the incumbent DGP and other officers. The Bench accordingly ordered–

“In view of the undertakings given by the learned State Counsel from time to time on behalf of the Contemnor, as well as misleading affidavits filed by him, this Court is of prima facie view that it is a clear case of willful [sic] flouting of the order passed by this Court, deserving action in terms of provisions enshrined under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, even if Mr. Y.B. Khurania, the Ex-D.G. of Police, who is the sole Contemnor in the present proceeding, has superannuated on 16.08.2026.”

Resultantly, notice was directed to be issued to the ex-DGP to show cause as to why he should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the reinstatement order.

The In-Charge DGP was also directed to comply with the petitioner's reinstatement order within four weeks, failing which DGP (I/C) and the IG (Personnel) shall be liable to remain personally present before the Court on 28.09.2026, i.e. the next date of hearing.

Case Title: Sagarika Parida v. Shri Y. B. Khurania, the D.G. of Police, Odisha

Case No: CONTC No. 362 of 2026

Date of Order: August 24, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Das, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party/Contemnor: Mr. M.R. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order