The judgment highlighted the importance of clear and accessible judgment writing, emphasizing the need for coherence, logical organization, and accessibility to all stakeholders.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 27 November 2020 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court affirmed the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal¹[“CGIT”] dated 09 July 2019.

3. In 2013, the appellant issued a charge sheet to the respondent in a disciplinary enquiry on a charge of gross misconduct. The respondent was charged with (i) gross misconduct including disrupting the functioning of the branch of the bank and misbehavior with the branch manager; (ii) use of abusive language and threatening the branch manager; (iii) organizing demonstrations without prior notice; (iv) disrupting smooth functioning by preventing other employees from carrying out their functions; (v) deliberately flouting systems and procedures with the intention to undermine the branch manager’s authority and increasing the operational risk of the branch; (vi) unauthorized absence from duty; (vii) disobedience of office orders; (viii) proceeding on medical leave without providing relevant medical certificates; and (ix) issuance of cheques from a bank account which did not have sufficient balance. The enquiry officer submitted an enquiry report dated 19 October 2013 finding the respondent guilty of all the charges.

4. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent on 22 October 2013 to explain why he should not be dismissed from service in view of the findings of the enquiry officer. The respondent sought an extension of 15 days. The disciplinary authority noted that it had granted an extension of 5 days but not having received any response, it imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by its order dated 06 November 2013. The appellate authority of the bank rejected the respondent’s appeal on 03 January 2014.

5. The respondent raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to challenge his termination before the CGIT. The enquiry proceedings and report were held to be vitiated as they were found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice by the Tribunal’s order dated 25 September 2018. However, the bank was allowed to lead evidence to justify the charges against the respondent.

6. Based on the evidence led before the Tribunal on the charge of misconduct, the CGIT by its order dated 09 July 2019 came to the conclusion that the first charge against the respondent was proved. The CGIT found the penalty of dismissal to be harsh and disproportionate and modified the punishment to compulsory retirement.

7. The appellant as well as the respondent instituted writ petitions before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to challenge the order of the CGIT. The High Court affirmed the order of the CGIT. The High Court also directed the Tribunal to compute the consequential benefits conferred upon the respondent. The High Court directed the Tribunal to pass an order in accordance with Section 10(9) and Section 10(10) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

8. On 12 March 2021, this Court issued notice against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court while entertaining the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. This court observed ;

3 Prima facie, in our view, a serious act of misconduct stands established from the evidentiary findings contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the award of the CGIT (Annexure P-9). We are inclined to issue notice for this reason and for an additional reason as well.

4 The reasons set out in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 27 November 2020 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution, span over eighteen pages but are incomprehensible. For this purpose, it is necessary to extract paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6 of the judgment of the High Court, which read as follows:

“3. All the afore infirmities noticed in the impugned award, to, occur, in, Annexure P-18, remain neither contested nor any