# State of U.P v. Kamal Narayan Singh

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39508
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-kamal-narayan-singh-39508
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

2ALL] State of U.P. V Kamal Narayan Singh 15
entry. This entry in absence of any other
material either before or after was not
sufficient to warrant the conclusion in rule 56
(c) that it was in public interest to retire the
petitioner from service.

4. The petitioner was retired in public
interest. This expression has been explained in
various
decisions.
For
instance
in
S.
Ramachandra Raju v State of Orissa
(1994) Vol 28 Administrative Tribunal
Cases 443 the apex court held that an order of
compulsory retirement based on one adverse
entry followed by subsequent good reports
makes the exercise of power arbitrary. In
absence of any material that the work of the
petitioner after 1985 was such that he
deserved to be weeded out the order is
arbitrary.

In the result this petition succeeds and is
allowed. The order dated 26.11.1991 passed
by respondent no. 1, Annexxure-1 to the writ
petition is quashed with all consequential
benefits of service to the petitioner. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner and pay his entire arrears of salary
within a period of two months from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced before
them.

 There shall be no order as to costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%((5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%((5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 1 . 0,75$&-
7+( +21·%/( 1 . 0,75$&-
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -

&ULPLQDO &RQWHPSW &DVH 1R RI

6WDWH RI 83
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
.DPDO 1DUD\DQ 6LQJK
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO )RU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6KUL 6XGKLU 0HKURWUD
$GGO *RYHUQPHQW $GYRFDWH $*$
0LVV 1DKLG 0RRQLV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL -1 7LZDUL

&ULPLQDO &RQWHPSW ± 3URFHHGLQJV RI &ULPLQDO
&RQWHPSW
ZHUH
LQWLWLDWHG
DJDLQVW
WZR
$GYRFDWHV DV D VXR PRWX UHYLHZ E\ WKH
%HQFK ZKLFK KDG GLVSRVHG RI WKH FRQWHPSW
FDVHV
+HOG ±
7KH SRZHU RI FRQWHPSW LV PHDQW WR EH XVHG
DQG H[HUFLVHG WR SUHVHUYH WKH DXWKRULW\ RI
WKH &RXUW DQG QRW ZUHFN SHUVRQDO YHQJHDQFH
DJDLQVW DQ\ LQGLYLGXDO QRU WKH H[HUFLVH RI
WKLV VSHFLDO MXULVGLFWLRQ VKRXOG EH VXJJHVWLYH
RI DQ\ ZLWFK ± KXQWLQJ ,Q WKH IDFW VLWXDWLRQ
RI KH SUHVHQW FDVH ZH DUH RI WKH FRQVLGHUHG
YLHZ
WKDW
IXUWKHU
FRQWLQXDQFH
RI
WKH
SURFHHGLQJ ZRXOG EH WHQWDPRXQW WR ZLWFK
KXQWLQJ DQG OHDG WKH FRXUW WR ORVH LWV RZQ
FKDQQHO RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI MXVWLFH :H DUH
RI WKH FRQVLGHUHG YLHZ WKDW LW ZRXOG EH LQ
IXUWKHUDQFH RI MXVWLFH WKDW WKH FKDSWHU LV
FORVHG VRRQHU WKH EHWWHU
3DUD

By the Court

1. The proceeding before us is apparition
of the three contempt cases In Re : Kamal
Narain Singh, referred to above. Having
emerged from the graveyard in which the
composite corpus of the three cases were
buried with contemner's comeuppance in each
of the three cases disposed of by a common
judgment dated 28.5.1999, the ghost is
chasing two Advocates namely Sri V.C.
Mishra, Senior Advocate and his Advocate
son Sri Vivek Mishra, besides some officials
of the Copying Section of this Court and the
contemner Kamal Narain Singh himself by
using the vehicle of contempt of court
jurisdiction of this Court. The proceeding, it
appears, has been initiated as a suo motu
review by the Bench which had disposed of
the contempt cases as aforestated. It is neither
necessary nor desirable to speak of the
circumstances under which the proceeding
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
was withdrawn from the concerned Bench and
placed before this Bench for disposal.

2. It so happened that one Kamal Narain
Singh filed a writ petition being Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition 91 of 1998 for quashing of
the first information report in Case Crime No.
376 of 1997 registered against him under
Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti
Social
Activities
Act,
1986,
P.S.
Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad on
30.12.1997. The said writ petition was
grounded on the allegations that the petitioner
therein happened to be a political worker
belonging to Samajwadi Party and the case
crime aforestated was registered against him
at the instance of members belonging to the
B.J.P. - ruling party. In support of his
contention that he belonged to Samajwadi
party the petitioner Kamal Narain Singh
placed reliance on certain documents, which
purported to have been issued under the
signature of Shri Malayam Singh Yadav, the
National President of Samajwadi Party. The
court found the documents to be forged and
fictitious and accordingly dismissed the writ
petition vide judgement and order dated
11.2.1998. Criminal Contempt case no. 17 of
1998 came to be registered against Kamal
Narain Singh for his having produced the
"forged and fictitious document for the
purpose of obtaining a Rule". Relevant
portion of the order date 11.2.1998 is quoted
below :
 " Since the petitioner has produced
before us a forged and fictitious document to
his knowledge for the purpose of obtaining a
Rule, we are of the view that he has
committed not only contempt of this Court
but also offence punishable under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Issue
notice to him as to why appropriate orders in
that regard be not passed against him. Since
Mr. Katiyar learned counsel for the petitioner
States that he has instructions only to appear
in the case, which has been dismissed, let
office issue a notice to the petitioner on the
address given in the writ petition and the
supplementary affidavit making the Rule
returnable on 25th March, 1998. The notice to
be registered as a separate criminal contempt
case.
Sd/- B.K. Roy,J
Sd/- P.K.Jain, J

3. The contemner Kamal Narain Singh did
not appear in pursuant to court's order dated
11.2.1998.
However,
on
15.4.1998
Sri
V.C.Mishra, Senior Advocate and Sri Vivek
Mishra, Advocate, put in appearance for the
contemner Kamal Narain Singh and submitted
that since the contemner had not been served
with the notice, he could not know if he had to
appear personally before the Court. The case
was adjourned to 28.4.1998 awaiting the
appearance of the contemner and for the
reasons recorded in the order dated 15.4.1998,
the court directed that another Criminal
Contempt Case be registered against the
contemner, Relevant part of the order reads as
under :

"We
had
not
exempted
his
personal
appearance
from
his
criminal
contempt
proceedings and under the Rules of the Court
he was expected to appear personally today
the date fixed from before. We accordingly
further charge man as to why he should not be
punished for not personally presenting himself
today and for that purpose we issue another
notice to him fixing 10 A.M. of Tuesday
dated 28th April, 1998. Since Mr. Misra,
learned counsel states that he has no
instructions to receive notice of this second
criminal contempt proceedings we direct the
office to dispatch another notice to the
contemner at the address mentioned by him in
his writ petition as well as supplementary
affidavit including the Vakalatnama which
has been filed today. We reserve our further
comments
in
this
regard
awaiting
his
appearance on 28th April, 1998 alongwith his
show cause in the first criminal contempt
proceedings as well as the second criminal
contempt proceedings which we have initiated
which has to be registered separately by the
2ALL] State of U.P. V Kamal Narayan Singh 17
office and put up together on the adjourned
date."

4. On the basis of the order aforesaid
Criminal Case No. 35 of 1998 came to be
registered against the contemner Kamal
Narain Singh. It appears that during the
pendency of the aforesaid two contempt
proceedings it was brought to the notice of the
Court that even though Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 91 of 1998 filed by the
contemner had been dismissed vide order
dated 11.2.1998, the contemner filed yet
another Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
1236 of 1998 grounded on the same cause of
action and obtained interim order of stay of
his arrest dated 9.4.1998 in crime case no. 376
of 1998, P.S. Mohammadabad, District
Farrukhabad under Section 3(1) of U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. The fact that the
earlier petition had been dismissed was not
disclosed in the subsequent writ petition and
in the affidavit it was stated that the writ
petition namely the second one was the first
writ petition with regard to the criminal
proceedings sought to be quashed therein.
'When this fact was brought to the notice of
the Court, the third criminal case was ordered
to be registered against the contemner Kamal
Narain Singh vide order dated 10.7.1998 on
the basis whereof Criminal Contempt Case
No. 59 of 1998 In Re : Kamal Narain Singh
came to be registered. Since the contemner
was not present in Court, directions were
issued to the police authorities to apprehend
and produce him before the Court. The case
was
adjourned
to
24.7.1998
awaiting
production of the contemner. It appears that
the police submitted a report that the
contemner was absconding and concealing
himself whereupon the Bench by its order
dated
24.7.1998
directed
attachment of
immovable properties of the contemner.
Ultimately
the
contemner
could
be
apprehended on 19.5.1999 and an application
dated 21.5.1999 was moved by the learned
Additional
Government advocate praying
therein that appropriate orders be passed in
respect to detention of the contemner as well
as his production before the court. On
22.5.1999 the Court directed that the said
Criminal Misc. Application be placed after
registering its number alongwith records of
Criminal case no. 17 of 1998 on 24.5.1999 at
1.45 P.M. in Chambers of one of the Hon'ble
Judges constituting the Bench. Pursuant to the
said order the contemner was produced in
Chambers on 24.5.1999 on which date the
contemner is said to have given a statement
that on 11.2.1998 he was personally present in
court when the writ petition was dismissed but
Sri V.C.Mishra, Senior Advocate advised him
to leave the court room and see him in his
chambers. The contemner, it appears, made
further statement to the effect that his
signature was obtained by Shri V.C. Mishra
on a Vakalatnama for moving the Supreme
Court against the orders dismissing the writ
petition and further that he has handed over
Rs. 20,000/- in cash to Sri V.C.Mishra for the
purpose of filing the case in the Supreme
Court. The Bench seized of the matter felt that
the facts stated by the contemner, prima facie,
made out a case of criminal contempt as
against Sri V.C.Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra
but before saying anything in this regard it
considered imperative on its part to give an
opportunity to the aforementioned Advocates
to have their say in the matter and accordingly
adjourned
the
three
criminal
contempt
proceedings to 26.5.1999. The order dated
24.5.1999 contained the following directions
to the Copying Section of the Court:

"The Copying Section of the Department of
the Court is directed to furnish particulars of
the application/applications for whom they
have been filed and to whom they were
handed-over for supplying certified copy of
the orders passed in the writ petition as also in
the contempt proceedings."

5. A copy of the order dated 24.5.1999
was served on Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior
Advocate and Sri Vivek Mishra, Advocate on
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
25.9.1999 alongwith a complete copy of the
order sheet and relevant papers. Sri V.C.
Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra appeared in
person on the date fixed. They submitted that
the statement made by the contemner was
wholly false, frivolous and motivated for the
purpose of damaging their integrity and
reputation at the instance of their enemies.
They accordingly prayed for permission to
withdraw their appearance from the first
Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998 in which alone
they had entered appearance earlier. After
hearing
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate appearing for the contemner and Sri
V.C.Misra, Sri Vivek Mishra, their counsel
Shri J.N. Tiwari and Sri Jagdish Tiwari,
Government Advocate, the Bench reserved its
order and deferred its delivery to 28.5.1999.
The contemner was directed to be produced in
Chambers on 28.5.1999 and in the meantime
he was ordered to be kept with Civil Lines
Police Station, Allahabad.

6. Judgment was delivered on 28.5.1999
whereby the contemner Kamal Narain Singh
was held guilty of committing contempt of
court and sentenced in each case to undergo
imprisonments and to pay fines as indicated in
the order. For the purpose of this case it is not
necessary to go into details of the punishment
inflicted on the contemner Kamal Narain
Singh. The main Judgment was delivered by
P.K,.Jain, J. So far as Sri V.C. Misra and Sri
Vivek Mishra, Advocates are concerned it
was held that the statement of the contemner
against them had been, "in all probabilities
given by the contemner in order to save his
skin from punishment that may be awarded to
him in the contempt proceedings". It was
accordingly held that :

"In our view the statement of contemner
which is not supported by any corroborative
material and possibility of which being false
in the circumstances stated above cannot be
ruled-out, cannot be accepted.

In the circumstances stated above we also
permit Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra
to withdraw their appearance from Criminal
Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998, in which
alone they had entered appearance on behalf
of the contermner'.

7. B. K. Roy, J., while agreeing with the
opinion of P.K. Jain, J., passed an additional
order with reference to the conduct of Sri V.
C. Mishra but the conclusion arrived at by P.
K. Jain, J. that the contemner had made false
statement against Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri
Vivek Mishra in order to save his skin from
punishment remained undiluted.

8. We have heard Sri J. N. Tiwari
appearing for Sri V. C. Misra and Sri Vivek
Mishra and Miss Nahid Moonis, Additional
Government Advocate and perused the entire
record
including
the
"Minutes"
dated
September 24, 1999. Judicial discipline
forbids us from making any comment with
respect to the "Minutes" dated September
24,1999 recorded in the Criminal Contempt
Case No. 59 of 1999 and as stated earlier in
this judgment it is neither necessary nor
desirable to go in to the circumstances in
which the so called "part heard case " stated
to be "at the hearing stage of review " were
directed to be placed before this Bench. On a
conspectus of judgment and order dated 28.5
1999 we veer around the view that the notices
issued to Sri V. C. Misra and Sri Vivek Misra
to explain their conduct in the backdrop of the
statement made by the contemner which in the
opinion of the Bench made out a "prima
facie" case of criminal contempt as against Sri
V. C. Misra and Sri Vivek Misra stood
discharged on Sri V. C. Misra and Sri Vivek
Misra being given a clean chit vide order
dated 28.5.1999. Thereafter there appears no
justification for initiating a suo motu review
proceedings and giving , notice of the same to
Sri V. C. Misra and Sri Vivek Misra. We are
also of the view that the contemner Kamal
Narain Singh having been convicted and
sentenced in criminal contempt cases, referred
2ALL] Bobby @ Premveer & another V State of U.P. 19
to above, there is no justification to review
the matter.

9. So far as the proceeding against the
officials of the Copying Section of this Court
is concerned, it appears, that officials of the
Copying
Section
failed
to
furnish,
"
particulars of the application /applications for
whom they have been filed and to whom, they
were handed over, for supplying certified
copy of the orders passed in the writ petition
as also in the contempt proceeding", as per
order of the Court dated 24.5.1999. However,
by order dated 12.7.1999 the Registrar of the
Court has been directed to institute an enquiry
into "unfortunate lapse of the Copying Section
of the Court" and take "suitable action
against erring person/persons" and in such
view of the matter we find no justification to
simultaneously proceed on judicial side in
exercise of contempt of court jurisdiction
which is a special jurisdiction to be "used
cautiously and exercised sparingly" to
uphold the dignity of the Court and the
majesty of law. The idea behind conferral of
such jurisdiction in superior courts of record
is that cautious exercise of the special
jurisdiction to punish for contempt would help
establish the 'reign' of law. 'Reign of law', it
may be observed, is the mind and will of God
and administration of justice', in true sense of
the term, is the pursuit of truth, goodness and
beauty. "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" - and
from that reckoning, it is a divine task. In its
pursuit of truth, goodness and beauty, the
court ought to bear in mind, with Sir Edward
Coke, that "if a river swell beyond its banks, it
loseth its own channel". It need hardly be said
that the power of contempt is meant to be
used and exercised to preserve the 'authority
of the Court' and not to wreck personal
vengeance against any individual nor the
exercise of this special jurisdiction should be
suggestive of any witch - hunting otherwise,
we are sure. "it will instantly lose all its
authority; and the power of the Court will not
long survive the authority". In the fact
situation of the present case we are of the
considered view that further continuance of
the proceeding would be tantamount to witchhunting and lead the court to lose its own
channel of 'administration of justice'. We are
of the considered view that it would be in
furtherance of justice that the chapter is closed
sooner the better.

10. In the result the proceeding originating
from the order dated 12.7.1999, copy of
which was ordered to be served to Sri V.C.
Misra, Senior Advocate and Sri Vivek Misra,
Advocate,
i.e.
the
so
called
review
proceedings are dropped. Let the record be
consigned to record room.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $/
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
/$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %.5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( %.5$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

%REE\ # 3UHPYHHU DQRWKHU«$SSOLFDQWV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«2SSRVLWH SDUW\

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQWV
6KUL 5DJKXUDM .LVKRUH
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SSRVLWH SDUW\
$*$

&U 3 & 6 ± 7KH TXHVWLRQ 3ZKHWKHU DQ
RUGHU XV &U 3& LQ )RUP 1R RI
6HFRQG 6FKHGXOH RI &U 3 & FDQ EH LVVXHG RQ
WKH UHTXHVW RI WKH SROLFH GXULQJ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ
RI VRPH RIIHQFH HYHQ LI QR LQTXLU\ RU WULDO RU
SURFHHGLQJV DUH SHQGLQJ LQ WKH &RXUW ́ LV
UHIHUUHG WR IRU WKH GHFLVLRQ RI 'LYLVLRQ %HQFK
Held,
7KH ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH RIIHQFH E\ WKH
SROLFH XV &U 3 & LV DOVR D SURFHHGLQJ
XQGHU WKH &RGH DQG IRU WKDW SXUSRVH D
0DJLVWUDWH FDQ H[HUFLVH SRZHU XV &5 3
& WR LVVXH DQ RUGHU LQ )RUP 1R LI WKH
SHUVRQ LV GHWDLQHG LQ VRPH RWKHU SULVRQ
3DUD