Holding

The High Court erred in finding contempt; no contempt was committed and its order was set aside.

Summary

The State Government of Uttar Pradesh transferred two Assistant Engineers, which was challenged by the second respondent. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the challenge and later, after President's rule, stayed the transfer and issued fresh orders. The High Court then directed the Engineer‑in‑Chief (appellant) to appear in court, threatening police custody if he failed to do so, and subsequently held his action of staying the transfer to be contempt, recording a remark in his confidential report. The Supreme Court held that no contempt was committed, that the High Court had misinterpreted its own orders and exceeded its contempt jurisdiction, and that the High Court’s direction was a gross abuse of power. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s contempt order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can punish the Engineer‑in‑Chief for contempt for staying a government transfer order.
Whether the High Court’s direction to produce the appellant in court, with a threat of police custody, amounts to valid contempt jurisdiction.
What is the scope of judicial review of service transfers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition placed a final seal on the transfer order, thereby restricting the State Government’s power to modify it.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

contempt of courtservice transferjudicial reviewArticle 226abuse of powerpolice custodyconfidential reportstate government

Judgment

A STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
v. r '
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"
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
impugned order against the appellant's conduct with a direction that the c
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
presence in Court on a particular date. There was no occasion for the Court D
,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 respondent. By doing so' the High Court did not and
-r could not have put any fetters on the power of the Government to pass any
subsequent order of transfer or recall the order of transfer already made.
The High Court had no occasion to restrict such powers of the Government
which were in fact recognised and acknowledged by the Court in the very
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A same order of dismissal. It cannot therefore be said by any stretch of
imagination that by the said order the High Court put its final seal of
r
approval of the order of transfer passed by the Government. The High Court
had not and could not have taken over the administration of the State by the
said order dismissing the writ petition. There was therefore no bar against
B the Government or the appellant withdrawing, altering or modifying the
order of transfer. Forgetting the said fundamental principle the High Court
proceeded to act on an erroneous premise that by directing that the order
of transfer be kept in abeyance the appellant had flouted the Court's order.
[577-H; 578-A-CJ
N.K. Singh v. Union of India & Ors .. [1994) 6 SCC 98 and Sri Abani
C Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa & Ors. J.T., [1995) 7 SC 467, relied on.
''

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (c)
No. 21052 of.1996 Etc ..

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.96 of the Allahabad High Court
D in C.M.W.P. No. 4078 of 1996.

Ms. Alka Aggarwal, Kamlendra Mishra, R.B. Misra, Arvind Kr. Shukla
and Ms. A.M. Khanwilkar, (Chatanya Siddharth) for R.C. Verma for the
appearing parties.

E The Judgemnt of the Court was delivered by

SRINIVASAN, J. This is a case of gr~ss abuse of power by the High
Court in its ~xercise of contempt jurisdiction. The High Court has not only
misunderstood the scope of its own order but also been overzealous in the
purported enforcement of the same with the res\ilt it has passed a totally
F unwarranted order casting a stigma on the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 748
of 1997 who was then the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Irrigation, Lucknow
(U.P.). The two S.L.Ps bracketed with the appeal are against the same order
- one by the State Government and its officials and the other by the second
respondent in the above appeal. For the sake of convenience, we will refer
G to the parties by their ranks in the civil appeal and the petitioners in S.L.P.
No.21052of1996 as the State Government.
r1 -(-'
...
2. By order dated 7.10.1995 the State Govt. transferred the first respondent
herein who was working as Assistant Engineer from Northern Division, Ganga .•
Canal, Roorki to Illrd Sub-Division, Dhampur, Irrigation Department,
H Moradabad. By the same order the second respondent who was working as
STATE v. A.K. SAXENA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 575

Assistant Engineer at Dhampur was attached to Irrigation Department, A
'I' Moradabad. The second respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court
challenging the order of transfer. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the petition in limine on 16.10.1995 by the following order:

"Sri R.S. Yadav for petitioner and Sri Afsar for the respondents are
heard. By the impugned order the petitioner is transferred from B
- ~
Dhampur to Moradabad which is only 70 Kms, away from Dhampur.
It is a transfer matter and no interference in such a matter is called for
in the writ jurisdiction~ The petition has no merit and is accordingly
dismissed"

3. On 18.10.1995 the President's Rule was imposed in the State. Orders c
were issued by the Chief Secretary for reviewing various important ·orders
passed by the previous Government between 1.10.95 and 18.10.95 including
the orders of transfer of officials. Conseqtiently the appellant passed an office
order dated 31.10.1995 staying the order of transfer dated 7.10.1995.
Accordingly the first respondent reported back at Northem Division, Ganga D
·"'- Canal Roorki on l l.11.1995. On 19.12.1995 the appellant issued fresh orders
· of transfer in accordance with Government order dated 12.12.1995 posting the
'. first respondent at Eastern Ganga Canal Construction Circle, Haridwar. The
first respondent challenged the same as well as the earlier order dated 31.10. 1995
in writ Petition No. _4078 of 1996. On 1.2.1996 the High Court passed an order
t in the following terms: E
'
"It appears that this Annexure-2 was passed by the Engineer-in-Chief
'( after respondent had failed to obtain any order in his. favour from the
.. High Court 'and_ the order of transfer was challenged by Respondent
No. 5 in Th'is Court. The Court did not grant any relief in his favour
but soon thereafter he represented to the Engineer-in-Chief. The F
~ Engineer-in-Chief passed the order staying the first order dated
7.10.1995, whereby the petitioner had already been functioning at
Dhampur. We, therefore, direct that irrespective of any one of these
annexures contained in Armexures 1,2 and 3 the petitioner shall
continue to function at Dharrlpur and Respondent No. I will continue G
on the post which he is holding.
~r-

The petitioner is satisfied to continue at Dhampur" .

The first respondent filed an application for clarifr:a•ion in the last sentence
of the first paragraph. That application was ordered on 14.2.96 by which the H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) 1 S.C.R.

A second respondent was to continue in the post wh.ich he was holding at
Moradabad. It is stated that both the aforesaid orders were passed without T
issuing notice to the second respondent though he was the fifth respondent
in the writ petition.

4. On coming to know the orders, the second respondent filed an
B application for recalling the previous orders. When that application came up
on 24.5.1996 the counsel for the first respondent could not be present on
account of the illness and the Court adjourned the said application on that
ground. However, the Court observed that the second respondent had no
grievance with the order by which the first respondent was directed to
C continue to function at Dhampur. The Court also observed that the authorities
should be at liberty to pass any appropriat~ order relating to the posting of
the second respondent herein.

5. The matter came up before the Court on 3. 7.1996. The Court opined
that the matter could not be proceeded without the physical presence of the
D appellant in the Court and directed its Registrar to communicate the order to
the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. asking him to produce the
appellant before it positively on 5. 7.1996. Even at that stage the Court directed
that if the appellant "evades his presence in Court on that date, he shall be
brought· into police custody with the assistance of Superintendent of Police
of the area where he has been serving". The Court also directed the order to
E be sent by Fax as well as personal messenger to the Engineer-in-Chief besides
by Fax to the Chief Secretary of the State and simultaneously to the Principal
Secretary of the Irrigation Department. Above all, the Court directed. the
Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Hussain to take appropriate steps for
execution of that order. In our opinion, there was no circumstance warranting
p the over-anxiety displayed by the Court in that order. There it no presumption
that a responsible officer of the Government would disobey an order of the ,,.._
Court requiring his presence in Court on a particular date. What was the
occasion for the Court to direct the officer to be taken into police custody
even when it was only issuing a notice calling upon him to be present?
G Significantly, the order did not indicate anywhere that it was issuing a notice
of contempt.
/

6. But in the order passed on 5.7.1996 the Court described him as
"alleged contemn or". In that order the Court stated that second respondent
herein desired to withdraw his review applications and all other pleadings in
H the writ petition though according to second respondent he was compelled
..
I
r
'

STATE v. A.K. SAXENA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 577
by the Court to do so. The Court also recorded that the first respondent A
herein stated that he did not pursue his writ petition in view of the fact that
the order of transfer dated 7.10.1995 had been implemented in the sense that
he was working at Dhampur. Taking note of the same, the Court observed that
it did not propose to pass any further order as the respondents 1 and 2 shall
continue at their places of posting according to the original order of transfer
~·~·
dated 7.10.1995. However, the Court proceeded to hold that the action of the B
appellant amounted to contempt in as much as he had dared to stay the order
of transfer after the writ petition tiled by the second respondent herein was
dismissed by the Court. The Court opined that the order dated 16.10.1995
dismissing the writ petition filed by the second respondent court a final seal
" the Court on the order of transfer dated 7.10.95 and therefore the subsequent
of c
order dated 31.10.95 passed by the appellant keeping in abeyance the order
of transfer dated 7.10.95 would tentamount to a deliberate attempt on the part
of the appellant to undo the Court's order and flout the same. The Court
referred to unconditional apology tendered by the appellant and observed
that its conscience did not permit it to accept the same. The Court said that
-'-. instead of sending him to prison its displeasure be recorded at his conduct D
and he be warned to be more careful in future. The Court directed that the
said remark be introduced in his confidential record. The Court also observed
that respondents l and 2 herein would continue on the posts to which they
were transferred by the order of transfer dated 7.10.95.
E
7. Itis that order which is in challenge before us in these three matters.
We are not concerned here with the correctness of the order of transfer
passed by the State Government of the validity or the contentions put forward
by respondents 1 and 2 against the same in the High Court. The parameters
of the powers of a Court under Article 226 vis a vis an order of transfer are
well settled. In N.K. Singh v. Union ofIndian & Ors., [1994] 6 S.C.C. 98, this F
~
Court held that interference by judicial review is justified only in cases of
malajides or infraction of any professed norms or principles and where career
prospects remain ilnaffected and no detriment· is caused to the concerned
Government employee', challenge to the transfer must be eschewed. Reiterating
the said proposition in Sri A bani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa & Ors., J.T.
G
(1995) 7 S.C. 467, the Court added that transfer being an incidence of service,
. -y is not to be interfered ,\.ith by the Courts unless it is shown clearly arbitrary .

8. In this case, the High Court passed an order on 16.10.95 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 H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R.

A the Government transferring the second respondent. By doing so the High
Court did not and could not have put any fetters on the power of the T
Government to pass any subsequent order of transfer or re-call the order of
transfer already made. The High Court had no occasion to restrict such
powers of the Government which were in fact recognized and acknowledged
B by the Court in the very same order of dismissal. It cannot therefore be said
by any stretch of imagination that by the said order the High Court put its
final seal of approval of the order of transfer dated 7.10.1995 passed by the
Government. The High Court had not and could not have taken over the
administration of the State by the said order dismissing the writ petition.
There was therefore no bar against the Government or the appellant
C withdrawing, altering or modifying the order of transfer passed on 7.10.95.

9. Forgetting the said fundamental principle the High Court proceeded
to act on an erroneous premise that by directing the order of transfer dated
7.10.95 to be kept in abeyance the appellant had flouted the Court's order
dated 16.10.95. The High Court was so much obsessed with that idea, it
D became over-anxious to see that its order as understood by it was carried out
and the appellant who had stayed the order of transfer dated 7 .10.95 was
punished.

I 0. This Court has on several occasions pointed out that the power of
E punishment for contempt shall not be exercised lightly but should be exercised
only to uphoid the majesty of law and dignity of courts. In Babu Ram Gupta
v. Sudhir Bhasin and Another, AIR (1979) Supreme Court 1528, this Court
said :

"It is well settled that while it is the duty of the Court to punish a
F person who tries to obstruct the course of justice or brings into
disrepute the institution of judiciary this power has to be exercised
not casually or lightly but with great care and circumspection and
only in such cases where it is necessary to punish the contemner in
order to uphold the majesty of law and the dignity of the courts."

G 10. It is needless to say that the facts in the present case did not
warrant the exercise \Jf power by the High Court to punish the appellant for
contempt as· he had not committed any contempt at all. There is no justification
for the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order against ·
the appellants conduct with a direction that the same should be introduced
H in his confidential record.
STATE v. A.K. SAXENA [SRINIVASAN, J.) 579
11. The direction contained in the last paragraph of the impugned order A
T that respondents I and 2 will continue on the same posts to which they were
transferred by order dated 7.10.95 will not prevent the Government from
passing appropriate order of transfer in accordance with rules as and when
it thinks fit.

12. The Civil Appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High B
Court dated 5 .7. I 996 is set aside. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly
disposed of. No order as to costs.

S.V .K.I. Appeal allowed and petitions disposed of.

·~