The State Law Officers appointed to conduct cases on behalf of the State of U. P. cannot appear and defend the contemners who are officers or officials of the State Government, as it is against the statutory provisions and professional ethics.

( 1 ) FOR determining the questions involved at this stage, relevant facts of these cases are as under :in Rohtas Singhs case (supra), the Commissioner Agra Division Agra and certain other officials are alleged to have violated an order of this Court dated 6-9-93 and in Gaon Panchayats case (supra), the Distt. Panchayat Raj Adhikari Bulandshahar it alleged to have violated this Courts order dated 11-7-96 passed in both the aforesaid cases respectively, consequently this Court has issued notices to show cause as to why appropriate action be not taken against them, pursuant to which the contemners appeared before this Court through Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

( 2 ) AN objection was raised that the State Law Officers i. e. Government Advocates, Deputy Government Advocates, Additional Government Advocates, Assistant Government Advocates, Standing Counsel, Chief Standing Counsel Additional Chief Standing Counsel and public prosecutors appointed by the State Government for appearing on behalf of State of U. P. cannot appear against the State of U. P. to defend the contemners and therefore, Mr. Kazmi cannot be allowed to appear and defend the contemners before this Court so long, he continues to be Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U. P.

( 3 ) ON this question Sri Kazmi addressed this Court pleading his entitlement to appear and defend the contemners and in support of his pleadings he filed Government Order No. D-2714/7-Nyay-3-96-83/96 dated 12-9-96 whereby six State Law Officers have been appointed by the State Government for doing PAIRABI of all contempt cases in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and its Bench at Lucknow defending the State Government employees and other employees under the control of State of U. P. Mr. Kazmi contended that he being one of said six State Law Officers named in aforesaid G. O. has been authorised under Clause 4. 07 of Legal Remembrancers Manual 1975 by the State Government to defend the Government Officers and employees in contempt matters in this Court and thus he is legally entitled to defend the present contemners in his capacity as Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties the main questions which arise in these two cases for determination by this Court at this stage are :1. Whether the State Law Officers referred to above appointed to conduct the cases on behalf of State of U. P. can be permitted or authorised by the Government and allowed by this Court to appear and defend the contemners who happen to be the officers or officials of State Government ?2. Whether the Government Order dated 12-996 referred to above can be said to have been legally issued in consonance with the statutory provisions ?

( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding to answer these two questions, it is necessary to deal about the nature of the proceedings of contempt of Court cases, may be civil contempt or criminal contempt. In Garvin v. Domus Publishing Ltd. (1989) 2 All ER 344, where Honble Walton J. relying upon Polly v. Whetnam (1880) 15 Chancery-Division 435 ruled. "the standard of proof required in such a proceeding is the Criminal Standard of proof, because it is an extremely serious matter indeed for a person to be accused of contempt of Court. As a result of that, one can find in the cases a good many expressions, like Quasi-Criminal and expressions to the same effect. The appex Court in T. C. Hingorani v. G. P. Misra, 1967 (37) AWR 662 and this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 17 of 1950, Phundi Singh v. Shri Ram, decided on 14/03/1951 have also used the expression Quasi-Criminal for contempt proceedings. Thus, the contempt of Court proceedings are of Quasicriminal nature. Here it will not be out of place to state that under Article 215 of the Constitution of India High Court is a Court of record and also exercises power to punish for contempt itself. Thus, High Court has got plenary Jurisdiction which means full, entire, c