Contempt of Court: Civil contempt – It is well settled that contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the Court – In the instant case, the limited direction given by the High Court and not disturbed by this Court was to permit the petitioners to work on the concerned posts and to pay them regular salary as and when the same accrues to them – Grievance of the petitioners in the first set of contempt petitions was that the respondents have appointed them afresh instead of reinstatement with continuity of service along with arrears of wages and thus have wilfully violated the direction of this Court – The expression used is only “to permit the petitioners to work on the posts” which were held by them at the time of their termination and “to pay them regular salary month by month” and “as and when the same accrues to them” – It is not a case of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Contempt of Court: Civil contempt – The second set of contempt petitions, emanate from termination order issued by the respondents – These petitions essentially proceed on the allegation that the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in not affording prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and similarly placed persons despite express direction contained in the said order – High Court had set aside the termination order issued by the respondents, solely on the ground that it was in violation of principles of natural justice – At the same time, liberty was given to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law including by undertaking exercise of segregating the tainted from the untainted candidates – Had the respondents concluded that it was possible to segregate tainted from untainted candidates, they would have been obliged to comply with the directions given by the High Court and restated by this Court to afford prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and similarly placed persons before passing fresh, reasoned order – However, from the subject termination order which is a speaking order, it is crystal clear that after due enquiry and taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, in particular the enquiry reports and the opinion of the experts including final report of SIT, the respondents were of the considered opinion that it was not possible to segregate tainted from the untainted candidates for reasons recorded in that order – In light of the conclusion reached by the respondents that it was not possible to segregate the tainted from the untainted candidates, in law, it must follow that the respondents could annul the entire selection process and pass the impugned order without giving individual notices to the petitioners and similarly placed persons – Thus, there was nothing wrong in respondents issuing the said termination order without affording prior opportunity to the petitioners and similarly placed persons. Constitution of India: Arts 32 and 226 – If the termination order is assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, such a grievance can be brought before the constitutional Court including by way of writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution of India – It is a different matter that this Court may be loath in entertaining the grievance directly under Art.32 and instead relegate the petitioner(s) before the High Court to first exhaust the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution of India – In the present case, there are other proceedings pending in the form of contempt petitions and a transfer petition wherein the termination order is the subject matter – Thus, the arguments in these cases will be overlapping – In that, the self-same order has been impugned in the writ petition filed before this Court – The fact that other affected similarly placed persons have filed writ petitions directly before the High Court and which are stated to be pending, can be no impediment for this Court in entertaining and deciding the writ petition – For, the issue regarding the purport of orders passed by this Court needs to be answered appropriately in contempt petitions only by this Court – It is not open to the High Court to interpret or explain the order passed by this Court in previous proceedings between the parties – High Court can only follow the dictum of this Court which is binding on it – Accordingly, the preliminary objection taken by the respondents regarding the maintainability of writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution by similarly placed persons directly filed before this Court to assail the impugned order which is also subject matter of second set of contempt petitions is not sustainable – Contempt of court.