STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus ASHOK KUMAR SAXENA AND ANR ETC.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 04-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR SAXENA AND ANR ETC. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1998 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINlYASAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: State Government's order of transfer-
On challenge, High Court's refusal to interfere with the transfer matter-
f mposition of President's rule in the State-Review of order of previous 
C Government-Earlier transfer order stayed-Fresh transfer order issued-
Challenge by transferee-High Court's direction to act as per earlier original 
transfer order-Directions given without issuing notice to respondent No. 
2-App/ication for recalling the previous order-High Court directing the 
Engineer-in-Chief to be present in the Court and if he evades, he should be 
D brought into police custody-High Court holding him "alleged contemnor" 
r 
as he dared to stay the transfer orders-Observations to be introduced in the 
).. 
confidential .report-Validity of-Held, gross abuse of power by High Court 
in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction-High Court erred in punishing him 
for contempt as no contempt was committed-Observations in the confidential 
report unwarranted-Constitution of India : Articles 215 and 226-Service 
E Law. 
Appellant State Government passed an order transferring respondents 
I and 2, Assistant Engineers. The said transfer order was ~hallenged by 
respondent No. 2. Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petition 
holding that no interference was called for in transfer matters. Subsequently, 
F President's rule was imposed in the State and orders of previous Government 
were reviewed. Consequently the Engineer-in Chief stayed the order of 
)---
transfer of respondent l and 2 and fresh transfer orders were issued. On 
challenge by respondent No. I, High Court directed that he shall continue 
to function as per the earlier transfer orders. The above direction was issued 
G without issuing notice to respondent No. 2, and he filed an application for 
recalling the said orders. When the matter came up for hearing, the High 
Court was of the opinion that without the physical presence of the appellant 
the matter could not be proceeded. Thus it directed the appellant to be 
present in the Court and if he evades he shall be brought into polic~ custody 
with the assistance of Superintendent of Police. Accordingly he was present 
H in the Court and tendered unconditional apology. The Court passed an order 
572 
' 
STATE v. A.K. SAXENA 
573 
holding that the action of the appellant amounted to contempt as he had dared A 
to stay the order of transfer on which final seal of approval was put by the 
Court. Rejecting the unconditional apology of appellant, the Court further 
directed that its displeasure be recorded in the confidential report of the 
appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, this B 
..._ Jr-
Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court erred in exercising the power to punish 
the appellant for contempt as no contempt was committed by him. There is 
also no justification for the observation made by the High Court in the c 
impugned order against the appellant's conduct with a direction that the 
same should be introduced in his confidential record. [ S78-H] 
1.2. There was no circumstance warranting the over anxiety displayed 
by the Court in its order. There was no presumption that a responsible 
officer of the Government would disobey an order of the Court requiring his 
D 
presence in Court on a particular date. There was no occasion for the Court 
,J,_ 
to direct that the Officer be taken into police custody when it was only 
issuing a notice calling upon him to be present. Thus, there was gross abuse 
of power by the High Court in its exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The High 
Court has not only misunderstood the scope of its own orders but has also 
been overzealous in the purported enforcement of the same with the result E 
it has passed a totally unwarranted order casting a stigma on the appellant. 
[576-F-G) 
., 
2. Power of punishment for contempt shall not be exercised lightly but 
I 
be exercised only to uphold the majesty of law and dignity of Courts. 
[578-E) F 
Babu Ram Gupta v, Sudhir Bhasin and Anr., AIR (1979) SC 1528, 
referred to. 
3. The High Courtpassed an order dismissing the writ petition filed 
by the second respondent refusing to interfere with the order of transfer. 
Thereby the High Court upheld the validity of the order of the Government G 
transferring the second respond

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.