# State of U.P v. Krishna Kumar Duggal

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 309
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-29
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 2075 of 1987
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-krishna-kumar-duggal-48019
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 378 - Appeal in case of
acquittal - It is an established principle
that while exercising appellate powers,
even if two reasonable views/conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence
on record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial Court - Interference with an
acquittal order can only be justified when
it is based on a perverse view - if the
appellate court is reversing the trial
court's order of acquittal, it should give
proper weight and consideration to the
presumption of innocence in favour of
accused, and to the principle that such a
presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court - In
acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is
not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper (Para 14, 19, 23)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
309

23. Since, we are not setting aside the
notice dated 5.5.2008, the writ petition
being Writ-C No.30548 of 2008 stands
dismissed.

24. Also, we are not elaborating on
the Government order dated 6.7.2006 as
that appears to be with regard to the stamp
duty leviable in the cases of undisputed
demerger.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 309
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Government Appeal No. 2075 of 1987

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar Duggal
 ...Accused-Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri K.K. Arora, Sri Shashank Shekhar, Sri
Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Ashutosh Kumar
Tiwari

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 378 - Appeal in case of
acquittal - It is an established principle
that while exercising appellate powers,
even if two reasonable views/conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence
on record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial Court - Interference with an
acquittal order can only be justified when
it is based on a perverse view - if the
appellate court is reversing the trial
court's order of acquittal, it should give
proper weight and consideration to the
presumption of innocence in favour of
accused, and to the principle that such a
presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court - In
acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is
not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper (Para 14, 19, 23)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs St.of Kerala
& anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39

2. Chandrappa Vs St.of Karn., (2007) 4 S.C.C.
415

3. St.Of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & anr. (2007) 3
S.C.C. 75

4. St.Of U. P. Vs Ram Veer Singh & ors. 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553

5. Girja Prasad (dead) By L.R.S Vs St.of M.P.
2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589

6. Luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors. (2009) Scc 749

7. Mookkiah & anr. Vs State, Rep. By The
Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu", Reported In
Air 2013 Sc 321

8. St.of Karn.Vs Hemareddy", Air 1981, Sc 1417

9. Shivasharanappa & ors. Vs St.of Karn.Jt 2013
(7) Sc 66

10. St.of Pun. Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma
(2013) 14 Scc 153

11. Jayaswamy Vs St.of Karn., (2018) 7 Scc 219

12. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs St.of Guj.,
(2020) 14 SC 750

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), at the
behest of the State, has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
04.03.1987
passed
by
learned
III
Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar
acquitting accused-respondent in Sessions
Trial No.73 of 1985, who was tried for
commission of offence under Section 302
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC').

2. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that a First Information Report
was lodged by informant Smt. Jayraji
against the respondent Krishna Kumar
Duggal, which was registered at Police
Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur
Nagar under Section 302 I.P.C. with the
averments that deceased Nirmala Duggal
was married with the accused-respondent
about 14 years before her death. At the time
of marriage, the accused-respondent told
that he was a engineer but after marriage it
was revealed that he was not the engineer
but merely a fitter in Small Arms
Ordinance Factory, Kanpur Nagar. After
the marriage, behaviour of accused was
cruel towards the deceased and deceased
had written various letters to her parents
explaining
the
agony,
anguish
and
merciless
beating
to
her
by
husband/respondent. Respondent/husband
was a man of bad character, having illicit
relations with other woman.

3. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that once
the deceased had lodged F.I.R. against the
accused-respondent on account of his cruelty
and torturing behaviour. During the fateful
day of 28.09.1984, the accused-respondent
had assaulted his wife and set her on fire,
which resulted into severe burn injuries to
her, ultimately, resulting in her death. With
the intention of escaping the offence of
murder, the accused-respondent lodged F.I.R.
at Police Station Govind Nagar that deceased
had committed suicide. Investigation was
taken up by the concerned police station, I.O.
visited the spot and prepared the site plan. No
kerosene oil, petrol bottle or container, match
box, stove or any other thing was found by
the I.O. near the dead body of the deceased.

4. Thereafter, I.O. has prepared the
inquest report and dead body was sent for
post-mortem.
Post-mortem
report
was
prepared by the doctor, who found several
injuries on the body of the deceased.
Statement of witnesses were recorded during
the course of investigation. After completion
of investigation, I.O. has submitted the
charge sheet against the accused-respondent
under Section 302 I.P.C.

5. Charges were framed against the
accused-respondent and prosecution examined
11 witness. Documentary evidence was also
filed by the prosecution. After completion of
prosecution evidence, statement of accusedrespondent was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which he stated that false evidence
has been led against him and he was falsely
implicated in the case.

6. The accused-respondent examined
five witnesses in defence. After hearing the
parties, learned trail court reached to the
conclusion that no offence is committed by
the accused-respondent and the deceased
had committed suicide, therefore, learned
trial court acquitted the accused-respondent
of the charges framed against him.

7. Heard Mr. Abhishek Srivastava,
learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
311
Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
accused-respondent and learned A.G.A. for
the State-appellant.

8. On being summoned, the accusedperson pleaded not guilty and wanted to be
tried. The offence for which accused was
charged was triable by the Court of
Sessions, hence, the accused-respondents
were committed to the Court of Sessions.

9. At the end of the trial and after
recording the statement of the accused
persons under section 313 Cr.P.C., and
hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution
and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge
acquitted the respondent as mentioned
above.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
submitted that the order of acquittal is not
justified in the eye of law as the
prosecution had very well established the
case against the accused. It is further
submitted by learned A.G.A. that the
learned Sessions Judge has misread the
evidence. Learned A.G.A. has lastly
submitted the the judgment impugned is
erroneous and liable to be set aside.

11. Before we embark on testimony
and the judgment of the Court below, the
contours for interfering in criminal appeals
where accused has been held to be non
guilty would require to be discussed.

12. The principles which would
govern and regulate the hearing of an
appeal by this Court, against an order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court, have
been very succinctly explained by the Apex
Court in catena of decisions. In the case of
"M.S. NARAYANA MENON @ MANI
VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANR",
(2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has
narrated the powers of the High Court in
appeal against the order of acquittal. In
para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has
observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court
entertained an appeal treating to be an
appeal against acquittal, it was in fact
exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even
while exercising an appellate power
against a judgment of acquittal, the High
Court should have borne in mind the well
settled principles of law that where two
view are possible, the appellate Court
should not interfere with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the Court below."

13.

Further,
in
the
case
of
"CHANDRAPPA
Vs.
STATE
OF
KARNATAKA", reported in (2007) 4
S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the
following principles;

"42. From the above decisions, in
our considered view, the following general
principles
regarding
powers
of
the
appellate Court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full
power
to
review,
re-appreciate
and
reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

[2]
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
puts
no
limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate Court on the
evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.

[3] Various expressions, such
as,"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
curtain extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasis the
reluctance of an appellate Court to
interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the Court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.

[4] An appellate Court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
there is double presumption in favour of the
accused.
Firstly,
the
presumption
of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental
principle
of
criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial Court.

[5] If two reasonable conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court."

14. Thus, it is a settled principle that
while exercising appellate powers, even if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions
are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.

15. In the case titled "STATE OF
GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN & ANR.",
reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex
Court has reiterated the powers of the High
Court in appeals against acquittal. In para
16 of the said decision, the Court has
observed as under:

"16.
From
the
aforesaid
decisions, it is apparent that while
exercising the powers in appeal against the
order of acquittal the Court of appeal
would not ordinarily interfere with the
order of acquittal unless the approach of
the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion
arrived at would not be arrived at by any
reasonable person and, therefore, the
decision is to be characterized as perverse.
Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view
which would upset the judgment delivered
by the Court below. However, the appellate
Court has a power to review the evidence if
it is of the view that the conclusion arrived
at by the Court below is perverse and the
Court has committed a manifest error of
law and ignored the material evidence on
record. A duty is cast upon the appellate
Court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on
record to find out whether any of the
accused is connected with the commission
of the crime he is charged with."

16. Similar principle has been laid
down by the Apex Court in cases titled
"STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS.
RAM VEER SINGH & ORS.", 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in "GIRJA
PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.R.s VS. STATE
OF MP", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus,
the powers, which this Court may exercise
against an order of acquittal, are well
settled.

17. In the case of "LUNA RAM VS.
BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS.", reported
in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para
10 and 11 has held as under:

"10. The High Court has noted
that the prosecution version was not clearly
believable. Some of the so called eye
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
313
witnesses stated that the deceased died
because his ankle was twisted by an
accused.
Others
said
that
he
was
strangulated. It was the case of the
prosecution that the injured witnesses were
thrown out of the bus. The doctor who
conducted the postmortem and examined
the witnesses had categorically stated that
it was not possible that somebody would
throw a person out of the bus when it was
in running condition.

11. Considering the parameters
of appeal against the judgment of acquittal,
we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal. The view of the High Court cannot
be termed to be perverse and is a possible
view on the evidence."

18. In a recent decision of the Apex
Court in the case titled "MOOKKIAH
AND ANR. VS. STATE, REP. BY THE
INSPECTOR
OF
POLICE,
TAMIL
NADU", reported in AIR 2013 SC 321, the
Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:

"4. It is not in dispute that the
trial Court, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence led in by the
prosecution and defence, acquitted the
accused in respect of the charges leveled
against them. On appeal by the State, the
High Court, by impugned order, reversed
the said decision and convicted the accused
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel
for the appellants very much emphasized
that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in upsetting the order of
acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the
scope and power of the High Court in an
appeal filed against the order of acquittal.
This Court in a series of decisions has
repeatedly laid down that as the first
appellate court the High Court, even while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
was also entitled, and obliged as well, to
scan through and if need be reappreciate
the entire evidence, though while hoosing
to interfere only the court should find an
absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis
of the evidence on record and not merely
because the High Court could take one
more possible or a different view only.
Except the above, where the matter of the
extent and depth of consideration of the
appeal is concerned, no distinctions or
differences in approach are envisaged in
dealing with an appeal as such merely
because one was against conviction or the
other against an acquittal. [Vide State of
Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others,
(2004) 5 SCC 573]"

19. It is also a settled legal position
that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court
is not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper. Such principle is laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
"STATE
OF
KARNATAKA
VS.
HEMAREDDY", AIR 1981, SC 1417,
wherein it is held as under:

"...This Court has observed in
Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967
SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat
the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
Court expression of general agreement
with the reasons given by the Court the
decision of which is under appeal, will
ordinarily suffice."

20.

The
Apex
Court
in
"SHIVASHARANAPPA & ORS. VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA", JT 2013 (7)
SC 66 has held as under:
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"That
appellate
Court
is
empowered to reappreciate the entire
evidence, though, certain other principles
are also to be adhered to and it has to be
kept in mind that acquittal results into
double presumption of innocence."

21. Further, in the case of "STATE
OF PUNJAB VS. MADAN MOHAN LAL
VERMA", (2013) 14 SCC 153, the Apex
Court has held as under:

"The law on the issue is well
settled that demand of illegal gratification
is sine qua non for constituting an offence
under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of
tainted money is not sufficient to convict
the accused when substantive evidence in
the case is not reliable, unless there is
evidence to prove payment of bribe or to
show that the money was taken voluntarily
as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by
the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt,
in the absence of any evidence with regard
to demand and acceptance of the amount as
illegal gratification. Hence, the burden
rests on the accused to displace the
statutory presumption raised under Section
20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to
establish with reasonable probability, that
the money was accepted by him, other than
as a motive or reward as referred to in
Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking
the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the
court
is
required
to
consider
the
explanation offered by the accused, if any,
only on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability and not on the touchstone of
proof
beyond
all
reasonable
doubt.
However, before the accused is called upon
to explain how the amount in question was
found in his possession, the foundational
facts
must
be
established
by
the
prosecution.
The
complainant
is
an
interested and partisan witness concerned
with the success of the trap and his
evidence must be tested in the same way as
that of any other interested witness. In a
proper case, the court may look for
independent
corroboration
before
convincing the accused person."

22. The Apex Court recently in
Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018)
7 SCC 219, has laid down the powers of
appellate court in re-appreciating the
evidence in a case where the State has
preferred an appeal against acquittal, which
read as follows:

"10. It is by now well settled that
the Appellate Court hearing the appeal
filed against the judgment and order of
acquittal will not overrule or otherwise
disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the
Appellate Court does not find substantial
and compelling reasons for doing so. If the
Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the
facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's
decision was based on erroneous view of
law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely
to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if
the entire approach of the Trial Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if
the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has
ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of the ballistic expert
etc. the same may be construed as
substantial and compelling reasons and the
first appellate court may interfere in the
order of acquittl. However, if the view
taken by the Trial Court while acquitting
the accused is one of the possible views
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Appellate Court generally will not
interfere with the order of acquittal
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
315
particularly
in
the
absence
of
the
aforementioned factors.

.........................It is relevant to
note the observations of this Court in the
case of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath
Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which
reads thus:

"21. There is no embargo on the
appellate court reviewing the evidence
upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not
be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by acquittal. The golden
thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases
is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and the other to
his innocence, the view which is favourable
to the accused should be adopted. The
paramount consideration of the court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where admissible
evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate
court
to
re-appreciate
the
evidence in a case where the accused has
been
acquitted,
for
the
purpose
of
ascertaining as to whether any of the
accused committed any offence or not."

23. The Apex Court recently in
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of
Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750, has held that the
appellate court is reversing the trial court's
order of acquittal, it should give proper
weight and consideration to the presumption
of innocence in favour of accused, and to the
principle that such a presumption sands
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court and in Samsul Haque v. State
of Assam, (2019) 18 SCC 161 held that
judgment of acquittal, where two views are
possible, should not be set aside, even if view
formed by appellate court may be a more
probable one, interference with acquittal can
only be justified when it is based on a
perverse view.

24. It appears that most of the
witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution. The learned trial judge has
not found F.I.R. free from any kind of
suspicion.

25. We have perused the depositions
of prosecution witnesses, documentary
evidence
supporting
ocular
versions,
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties. We have been taken through the
record. We are unable to accept the
submissions of the State counsel for the
following reasons and the judgments of the
Apex Court which lay down the criteria for
consideration of appeals against acquittal.
The chain has been found to be incomplete.
While going through the judgment it is very
clear that the court below has given a
categorical finding that the evidence is so
scanty that the accused cannot be punished
and or convicted for the offences for which
they are charged. The factual scenario in the
present case will not permit us to take a
different view than that taken by the court
below. In that view of the matter we are
unable to satisfy ourselves. Thus we concur
the findings of the court below.

26. Hence, in view of the matter & on
the contours of the judgment of the Apex
Court, we concur with the learned Sessions
Judge.

27. The appeal sans merits and is
dismissed. The record and proceedings be
sent back to the Court below. The bail and
bail bonds are cancelled.
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. We are thankful to learned A.G.A.
for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 316
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 689 of 2022

Sri Amalendu Chandra & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Prof.
Rajiv
Shekhar,
Director,
I.I.T.,
(I.S.M.), Dhanbad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Manish Goyal, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Sri Ashok Khare, Sr.
Advocate

A. Education/Service Law - Appointment
-
Disciplinary
Proceeding/Enquiry
-
Institute of Technology
Act, 1961
-
Section 17(1); Statutes of older IIT's -
Clause 15(3).

Jurisdiction - If the High Court, for whatever
reason, decides an issue or makes any direction,
relating to the merits of the dispute between the
parties, in contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an order is
open to challenge in an intra court appeal (if the
order was of a learned Single Judge and there is
a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by
seeking special leave to appeal u/Article 136 of
the Constitution of India (in other cases). (Para
8)

B. Interpretation of order in contempt
jurisdiction - While exercising contempt
jurisdiction, the court must not travel
beyond the four corners of the order of
which violation is alleged and it should not
enter into questions that have not been
dealt with or decided in the judgment or
the order violation of which is alleged. If
the judgment or order does not contain any
specific direction regarding a matter or if there
is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein
it will be better to direct the parties to approach
the court which disposed of the matter for
clarification of the order instead of the court
exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon
itself
the
power
to
decide
the
original
proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the
court passing the judgment and order. (Para 9
to 11)

In the instant case, the writ petitioner (Prof.
Rajiv Shekhar) had filed Writ-A No. 16060 of
2019 for the limited relief of quashing the letter
dated 23.08.2019 conveying that approval for
disciplinary
proceeding
against
the
writ
petitioner may be obtained at the level of IIT
Council. The writ petitioner also prayed for
quashing the memorandum by which a penalty
was proposed against him. There was no prayer
in the writ petition w.r.t. emoluments payable to
him as an appointee on the post of Director.
The order dated 19.10.2019 recording the
undertaking of the counsel representing the
respondents in Writ-A No. 16060 of 2019 is only
in
respect
of
putting
those
impending
proceeding in abeyance. The scope of a writ
petition is ordinarily determined by the prayer
made therein. In such circumstances, the
undertaking recorded in the order dated
19.10.2019,
could
not
have
been
interpreted as an undertaking to the effect
that all the emoluments that are attached
to the post of Director shall be admissible
to the writ petitioner particularly, when
there was no such prayer in the writ
petition. The direction of the learned
Single
Judge,
vide
order
dated
21.10.2022, requiring the respondents to
grant HAG scale in compliance of the writ court
order and, on failure to do so, to appear before
the contempt court, is beyond the scope of
the order of the writ court of which
contempt was alleged and is, therefore,
liable to be set aside. (Para 12)

Respondent (Prof. Rajiv Shekhar) can move an
appropriate application either in the pending
writ petition or can file a fresh writ petition