The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper conduct and language in the judiciary, and the need for officers to understand the law and legal position.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Mr. V. Jaishanker through his counsel has submitted an application tendering unconditional apology requesting the Court to drop the proceedings. The then director, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh present in Court has already submitted his show cause and has also tendered his apology and has Prayed for closing the proceedings.

3. Before I proceed with the said matter, it would be necessary for me to refer to the facts which led to these proceedings.

4. One Nirankar Prasad Singh was awarded certain punishment by the then Director. Before proposing the punishment, the Director referred the matter to the concerned Secretary for approval of the punishment. Mr. V.Jaishanker holding the office of the Secretary approved the punishment and referred the matter back to the Director. After the matter was approved by the Secretary, the Director awarded the said punishment to the petitioner. Nirankar Prasad Singh. It is to be noted that the Secretary himself is the appellate authority in the matter. After receiving the punishment, the said Nirankar Prasad Singh filed an appeal which was to be heard by the concerned Secretary. Instead of hearing the matter, Mr. V. Jaishanker called for the comments from the Director, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh submitted his comments and observed that the appeal was worth dismissal. Those observations/comments were taken to be a proposal and the concerned Secretary, Mr. V. Jaishanker just below those recommendations put his initial and approved the recommendation that the appeal be dismissed. Beyond that nothing was done. No orders were passed on the merits of the matter. Being shocked with the process/ procedure adopted by these two officers, I called for the original records and found, to my utter surprise, that everything alleged against these two officers was correct. Thereafter, I called for explanation from these two officers. The Director Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh accepted the mistake and narrated that neither he was required to seek approval of the punishment nor he was required to make the recommendation relating to dismissal of the appeal. Mr. V. Jaishanker, however, maintained before the Court that in accordance with the parliamentary procedure and the procedure prevalent in the Secretariat, when the recommendations are made or proposals are made the officer approving the same is not required to say anything beyond putting his initial/signature. When he was asked by this Court that if he was exercising the authority as the appellate authority then how could he approve the comments to be a proposal, apply the Secretariat procedure and dismiss the appeal. To this, he maintained that what he did was absolutely right and jsutified. That was not the end of the matter. After the Secretary had put his initial on the proposal made by the Director, instead of communicating the dismissal order, a fresh order was written by the Director giving complete reasons for dismissal of the appeal. The recomendations approved by the officers by putting initial were in 10 lines but the order dismissing the appeal as communicated was in two pages. When I asked the concerned Director that under what authority of law he had written the order for and on behalf of the appellate authority, he submitted that he thought that a reasoned order was required to be communicated.

5. When this matter was being heard, was informed by certain persons that Mr. V. Jaishanker was making an enquiry into my character, conduct, assets and properties. Instead of keeping the same to be a secret, in the open Court I told Mr. V. Jaishanker that if he wanted to make an enquiry into my character, conduct, properties and assets he was welcome rather I myself offered an explanation that what was my earnings and what good amount of tax was paid by me. I told him in open Court that it was not proper on his part to make an enquiry into the conduct of the sitting Judges of the High Court. I fur