Kripa Shankar Sharma, Regional Joint Director of Education vs State of U.P. and Others

This is a reference made by the Bench of Hon''ble Mr. Justice Arun Tandon in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5991 of 2007. The matter was referred to the erstwhile contempt of Court Bench and Hon''ble Mr. Justice K. S. Rakhra and Hon''ble Mr. Justice, S. C. Nigam, framed the following charges against the contemner:

Charge u/s 15 read with Section 2C of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

You are hereby charged as follows:

Firstly, that in Writ Petition No. 6991 of 2007, Committee of Management and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., you as Regional Joint Director of Education holding charge of Moradabad Region, Moradabad gave a false statement before this Court on 27.2.2007 to the effect that minutes of the Regional Level Committee are not being recorded in any register while in your affidavit filed before this Court in the said writ petition on 19.3.2007 you specifically mentioned para 4 that the register in respect of meeting of Regional Level Committee is available and you have brought it to Court and you are in a position to place before the Court. This shows that your aforesaid statement on oath was patently wrong and was intended to mislead the Court and it was in the nature of substantial interference with due course of justice which is an offence punishable u/s 12 read with Section 2C and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Secondly, that in the aforesaid writ petition on 19.3.2007 you produced before this Court a register of meeting of Regional Level Committee constituted by Government order dated 19.12.2000 and the said register was not maintained in normal course of business and was subsequently prepared for the purpose of the said writ petition as was held by this Court in its order dated 19.3.2007. This again was an act on your part to mislead the Court which amounts to substantial interference with due course of justice in the said judicial proceeding and thus you have committed an offence punishable u/s 12 read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This matter be listed for hearing on 9.10.2007.

That Petitioner''s alibi is that he was given additional charge of Moradabad as Joint Director of Education, and High School and Intermediate examinations were in the offing, because of which, there was huge pressure of work and the Petitioner was not in a position, to verify all the details. He was informed, that no register of the Regional Committee is being maintained, and that is what he unhesitatingly stated before the Court in his statement. If there was any intention of misleading the Court on the part of the contemner, he would not have subsequently produced the register of Regional Committee before the Court, and would have allowed to remain suppressed. This is the explanation of the Petitioner as regards the first charge.

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the alleged contemner and Sri A. J. Singh, Addl. Government counsel for the State.

We are inclined to believe, that the Petitioner, was unaware of the fact that any register of the Regional Committee was being maintained, and he relied on the information given by the office that there was no register and that is why he made a statement before the Court to the effect that there was no register. If the intention of the contemner was to mislead the Court, he would have not allowed the production of the register at a subsequent stage, and would have concealed and suppressed the register. That indicates that the contemner was himself mislead by the office, and that is why he made a statement to the effect that no register was being maintained.

While we accept, that there was no mala fide or dishonest intention on the part of the contemner to mislead the Court, we would observe that there has been laxity, in the supervision by the contemner, and his supervision of the office was not upto to the mark.

As regards the first charge, we are, therefore, of the view that since there was no deliberate contempt on the part of the contemner to mislead the Court, it would not be appropriate in the circumstances to find him guilty on that charge.

As regards the second charge of the register of the Regional Committee being fabricated, it is to be seen, that the register is maintained by some clerk in the office of the Joint Director and the Joint Director is not supposed to maintain the register. No notice has been issued to the clerk, who was supposed to maintain the register. His version has not been taken as to why the register was not being maintained, and is in loose scattered sheets.

It is also to be noticed that this register was only upto the March, 2006 while the contemner took the charge on 8.2.2007 when the Petitioner got a search made in the office, the register was discovered, and he duly produced the same before the Court in the condition in which, it was found, if there was any dishonest intention on the part of the contemner, he would have not laid the register before the Court, at all.

As stated above, in the circumstances, the register was in such a state, could have been disclosed by the clerk, who was maintaining the register and his explanation has not been obtained, and it cannot, therefore, be said as to how and why the register was in such a state and why proceedings subsequent to March, 2006 were not recorded, in the register.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would not be fair to hold the contemner guilty of the charges levelled against him, and he deserves exoneration.

Contempt is discharged.