JUDGMENT ML Srinivasan, C J.—It is very unfortunate that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to punish the appellant for contempt of court without recording any evidence in order to arrive at the factual findings that the appellant is quilty of such contempt. The only material on record is the return of Process Server in which she has stated that when the summons was tendered to the appellant, he refused to receive the same. What the appellant has pointed out in the reply is that on the same day and at the same time, he had received the summons in the main proceedings, namely, C. M. P (M) No. 181/93 He has also produced alongwith reply a copy of the said summons to show that he had received the said summons without any demur. What has been returned to the Court is the notice in C. M. P. No, 28/93, which is an interlocutory application pending disposal of C.M-P. (M) No. 181/93. According to the appellant, both the summons were brought to him. He received the other summons and when he received the summons in C.M.P. No. 28/9% he made an endorsement acknowledging the receipt of the same to the effect that he had received the same with enclosures. His signature is also found on the return made by the Process-Server. According to the appellant, he was taking his food as it was lunch hour but the Process-Server insisted upon him to make an endorsement mentioning the total number of pages received by him He requested the Process-Server to wait till he finished his lunch. It is also stated by him that he informed the Process-Server that the endorsement already made by him, namely, “received with enclosures", would serve her purpose and there is no necessity to mention the total number of pages. At that stage, the Process Server refused to wait and also got the endorsement struck off by him and returned the summons to the Court with a report that he refused to receive the summons. 2. The minimum that the Court could have done in the circumstances Is to examine the Process-Server before the Court and give an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the said Process Server. 2. The minimum that the Court could have done in the circumstances Is to examine the Process-Server before the Court and give an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the said Process Server. The Court has proceeded on an assumption that what has been stated by the Process-Server is true and what has been stated by the appellant in his reply is false Such an assumption is wholly unwarranted, particularly, when it is a matter of contempt, which is of a very serious nature. The burden is on the person who alleges contempt, to prove that such a contempt was committed It is too well known that the proceedings in contempt are a sort of criminal proceedings and quasi-criminal if not fully criminal proceedings In such a situation, the Court should have taken care to ascertain whether the burden has been discharged and there is sufficient proof before the Court that the respondent is guilty of contempt. 3. In the absence of any evidence, we cannot agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is guilty of contempt. On the other hand, what is stated by the appellant in the reply appears to be true in view of the fact that the appellant had received summons in the main case at the same time brought by the same Process-Server. There is no explanation in the report of the Process-Server as to how the appellant received one summons and refused to receive the other summons. 4. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-11-1991 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The contempt petition is dismissed. The appellant is discharged. 5. There is no explanation in the report of the Process-Server as to how the appellant received one summons and refused to receive the other summons. 4. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-11-1991 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The contempt petition is dismissed. The appellant is discharged. 5. We notice that some observations have been made by the learned Judge with regard to the engagement of the Advocate General in his individual capacity to represent the appellant herein We do not find any error whatever in the Advocate General being permitted to appear for the appellant herein, The question whether a person is guilty of contempt can be decided only after the Court records evidence and is convinced of such a contempt having been committed by the party in question When a party in question is of the view that no contempt has been committed by him and when he is an official of the Government, it is certainly open to the Government to help such an official to explain to the Court that no contempt has been committed That is what has been done in this case We do not find any error on the part of the Government in trying to defend the case of the appellant by permitting the Advocate General to appear for him. The observations of the learned Judge in the last paragraph of his order are wholly unwarranted. Order Accordingly.