( 1 ) WHENEVER you are in doubt, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.

( 2 ) WHEN a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament. . . and then he must supplement the written words so as to give force and life to the intention of legislature. A Judge should ask himself question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck to the texture of it, they would have straightened it out ? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.

( 3 ) ORALITY ad libitum may be the grounds of Victorian era advocacy but in our needy Republic with crowded dockets, forensic brevity is a necessity. The Bench and the Bar must fabricate a new Shorthand form of court methodology which will do justice to the pockets of the poor who seek right and justice and to the limited judicial hours humanly available to the court if the delivery system of justice is not to suffer absolescence.

( 4 ) JUDICIAL review has, I think, developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call illegality, the second irrationality and the third procedural impropriety. This is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of proportionality, which is recognised in the administrative law of several fellow members of the Economic Community.

( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Clerk is appearing for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta is appearing for the respondents. In this petition, by order dated 8. 2. 1993, rule was issued and it was made returnable on 21st June, 1993. In this petition, affidavit in reply has been filed by the respondents on 7th December, 1993.

( 6 ) THE petitioner herein has challenged the order of removal of the petitioner from service passed by the respondents dated 17th August, 1992, received by the petitioner on 29th August, 1992, inter alia on the ground that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations, in utter disregard of the relevant consideration, vitiated by total non application of mind and also in disregard of the pronouncements and law laid down by this Court as well as the Honble Supreme Court, illegal, null and void.

( 7 ) THE facts of the present petition, in brief, are as under:the petitioner herein was appointed as inspector in the respondent Company by order dated 31. 12. 1984. Said post of inspector was redesignated as Development Inspector and was then redesignated as Development Officer. That the petitioner has passed the examination of federation of insurance institute pursuant to which he was given appointment. The petitioner was confirmed in the respondent Company by order dated 14. 5. 1986 as Inspector Gr. I w. e. f. 1. 2. 86. The petitioner continued to work as development inspector thereafter.

( 8 ) ON 1. 5. 87, the petitioner got married. The petitioner and his wife could not get along well and there was a lot of matrimonial disharmony and discord and, therefore, the petitioner and his wife filed a joint petition for divorce of marriage and the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in the year 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that due to these problems, the petitioner used to remain under mental pressure and, therefore, he was irregular in a