9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he memory of nobility no one would like to lose; none would conceive of it being atrophied. It is dear to life and on some occasions it is dearer than life. And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented. One would like to perceive it as an honour rather than popularity. When a court deals with a matter that has something likely to affect a person's reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to. The advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said. 3. We have commenced with aforesaid prefatory note because the centripetal question that has eminently emanated for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 12384 of 2008 commenting on the conduct of the Appellant and further directing recovery of interest component awarded to the employee, the first Respondent herein, from the present Appellant and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommutation of other leaves, etc. were withheld due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings. On 6.2.2007 the first Respondent filed CWP No. 2243 of 2007 which was disposed of by the High Court directing the government to complete the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. As the enquiry was not concluded within the stipulated time, the employee preferred CWP No. 12384 of 2008. The learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.10.2009 allowed the writ petition and set aside the charge-sheet and the punishment with further directions to release all the pension and pensionary benefits due to the first Respondent within a period of one month with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the due date to the date of payment. In course of judgment the learned single Judge made certain observations against the Appellant herein. 6. Grieved by the observations and inclusive directions made in the judgment the Appellant preferred LPA No. 1456 of 2009. The contentions raised by the Appellant in the intra-court appeal that the adverse remarks were not at all necessary to adjudicate upon the issue involved in the matter, and further when he was not impleade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns in judgments, unless the persons in respect of whom comments and criticisms were being made were parties to the proceedings, and further were granted an opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on such persons. 11. In State of W.B. and Ors. v. Babu Chakraborthy (2004) 12 SCC 201 the principle was reiterated by stating that the High Court was not justified and correct in passing observations and strictures against the Appellants 2 and 3 therein without affording an opportunity of being heard. 12. In Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr. (1996) 6 SCC 234, after referring to the authorities in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703, Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha (1972) 1 SCC 181, R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan (1975) 2 SCC 466 and Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar (1986) 2 SCC 569, this Court opined thus: 7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the Appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to defend themselves. It cannot be ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570, The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Anr. JT 1990 (2) SC 54 and P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D.T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636, thought it appropriate to quash the same on the ground of delay. The conclusion could have been arrived at without making series of comments on the Appellant, who, at the relevant time, was the Chief Minister of the State. 15. At this juncture, we think it apt to point out some of the observations made against the Appellant: Arrogance of power by the Chief Minister seems to be at play in this case xxx xxx xxx The Petitioner is also justified in making a grievance that first the Chief Minister had suspended him on the basis of a loose talk in the press conference and thereafter the officials of the Government have attempted to justify their own mistakes on the one pretext or the other. The Petitioner would term this case to be "a proof of worst ugly look of Indian democracy". He may be an aggrieved person but his anger is justified to refer this treatment to be an ugly face of democracy. Is not it dictatorial display of power i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in these terms: We may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. 18. In A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 533 the Court observed that judicial restraint and discipline are necessary to the orderly administration of justice. The duty of restraint and the humility of function has to be the constant theme for a Judge, for the said quality in decision making is as much necessary for Judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Further proceeding the two-Judge Bench stated thus: Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind his judgment instead of in front of it. FRANKFURTER, Felix, Foreword, to Memorial issue for Robert H. Jackson, 55 Columbia Law Review (April, 1955) P. 436 22. Thus, a Judge should abandon his passion. He must constantly remind himself that he has a singular master "duty to truth" and such truth is to be arrived at within the legal parameters. No heroism, no rhetorics. 23. Another facet gaining significance and deserves to be adverted to, when caustic observations are made which are not necessary as an integral part of adjudication and it affects the person's reputation - a cherished right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 this Court has observed: Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 recognises the right to have opinions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir procedures. In this context one can recall the famous words of Chapter II of Bhagwad-Gita: Sambhavitasya Cha Kirti Marnadati Richyate. 28. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 587. 29. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation in holding that disparaging remarks, as recorded by the learned single Judge, are not necessary for arriving at the decision which he has rendered, the same being not an integral part and further that could not have been done when the Appellant was not a party before the court and also he was never afforded an opportunity to explain his conduct, and the affirmation of the same by the Division Bench on the foundation that it has not caused any prejudice and he can fully defend himself when a subsequent litigation is instituted, are legally unacceptable. Accordingly, we expunge the extracted remarks hereinbefore and also any remarks which have been made that are likely to affect the reputation of the Appellant. Since, the appeal is confined only to expunging of adverse remarks, the same is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
