Cuttack: Retirement from public office does not absolve one’s liability for wilful disobedience of a court order, Orissa high court has ruled while directing former Odisha DGP Y B Khurania to face contempt proceedings for non-compliance with an earlier order to reinstate sub-inspector Sagarika Parida.Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, while hearing Parida’s contempt petition on Monday, directed issuance of a show-cause notice to Khurania, who retired on Aug 16. The court asked him to explain why he should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.Under Section 12, a person can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to Rs 2,000, or both for contempt of court.The inspector general (personnel) has been directed to serve the notice on Khurania and report compliance within seven days. The present DGP (interim charge) and IG (personnel) have been asked to remain present before the court on Sept 28.The ruling followed after the state sought to have the contempt case dropped on the ground that Khurania, who was the sole contemnor, had superannuated and the present incumbent had not been made a party.While advocate Prabin Das argued on behalf of the petitioner, additional govt advocate M R Mohanty represented the state.Rejecting the govt’s plea, the court held that retirement would not come to the rescue of an official against whom contempt proceedings had already started. It observed that Khurania had given undertakings through the state counsel seeking time to comply with the court’s order.The court prima facie found the matter to be a case of “wilful flouting” of its order and said it deserved action.“As is revealed from the record, the contemnor, instead of clearly mentioning in the affidavit that the state intends to challenge the single judge’s order dated 25.09.2025, undertook before this court by way of an affidavit seeking time for compliance of the order,” Justice Mishra said.The court made it clear that the subsequent retirement of the contemnor could not erase the alleged disobedience, holding that “even if the contemnor has been superannuated in the meantime, still the contempt proceeding would lie against him.”The court also rejected the state’s plea to defer the contempt case because the govt had moved the Supreme Court against the division bench judgment upholding Parida’s reinstatement.“Pendency of the proceeding before the Supreme Court, in absence of any interim order of stay, cannot be a ground to stall a contempt proceeding,” the court ruled.Parida, appointed as sub-inspector in 2017, was discharged from service in Nov 2020 for allegedly suppressing information about criminal cases against her during verification prior to her appointment. A single judge subsequently quashed the discharge order after finding that the three cases relied upon by the state had ended in her acquittal. The judge’s order directing her reinstatement with consequential benefits was upheld by a division bench on June 22.