2014 (1) TMI 1864 - SC - Indian Laws

The Appellant was not a party to the proceeding. It is manifest that the learned single Judge has made certain disparaging remarks against the Appellant and in fact he has been also visited with certain adverse consequences. Submission of Mr. P.P. Rao learned senior Counsel is that the observations and the directions are wholly unsustainable when the Appellant was not impleaded as a party to the proceeding and further they are totally unwarranted for the adjudication of the controversy that travelled to the Court.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana commenting on the conduct of the Appellant and directing recovery of interest component awarded to the employee from the Appellant is legally defensible.
2. Whether the observations made by the learned single Judge, which were not necessary for the decision of the case, should be expunged.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated as the Appellant was not a party to the proceeding.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Legality of the Judgment and Order:
The central question in this appeal was whether the judgment and order by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which commented on the Appellant's conduct and directed recovery of interest from the Appellant, is legally defensible. The Division Bench had opined that the observations made by the learned single Judge were based on material available on record and did not cause prejudice to the Appellant. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that the Appellant was not a party to the original proceeding, and making such remarks without giving the Appellant an opportunity to defend himself violated the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court referred to the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Anr., which established that a person against whom mala fides or bias is imputed should be impleaded as a party respondent to the proceeding and be given an opportunity to meet the allegations.

2. Necessity of Observations for Decision:
The Supreme Court examined whether the disparaging remarks made by the learned single Judge were necessary for the decision of the case. It was noted that the learned single Judge had already concluded that the suspension order was unjustified and that there was arbitrary exercise of power, which was amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court found that the comments on the Appellant's conduct were not required to decide the case, and the conclusions could have been reached without such remarks. The Court cited the principles laid down in Mohammad Naim's case, which emphasized that disparaging remarks should only be made if the person whose conduct is questioned is before the court, there is evidence on record justifying the remarks, and it is necessary for the decision of the case.

3. Violation of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court reiterated that making observations and directions against the Appellant without him being a party to the proceeding violated the principles of natural justice. The Court referred to several cases, including Testa Setalvad and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., and Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr., which emphasized that no one should be condemned unheard, and any remarks affecting a person's reputation should not be made without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the disparaging remarks made by the learned single Judge were not necessary for the decision of the case and violated the principles of natural justice as the Appellant was not a party to the proceeding. The Court expunged the remarks and directions that affected the Appellant's reputation. The appeal was allowed to the extent of expunging the adverse remarks, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →