Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Anil R. Dave, Dipak Misra, JJ.
Om Prakash Chautala – Appellant
Versus
Kanwar Bhan and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1785 of 2014 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14409 of 2010]
Decided On : 31-01-2014
1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; (2004) 10 SCC 88; (2004) 12 SCC 201; (1996) 6 SCC 234; AIR 1964 SC 703; (1972) 1 SCC 181; (1975) 2 SCC 466; (1986) 2 SCC 569 - Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Single Judge quashing charge-sheet on ground of delay - Comments made on appellant - Not required or warranted to arrive at the conclusion. (Para 13)
AIR 1964 SC 703 - Relied upon
(1998) 4 SCC 154; (1995) 2 SCC 570; JT 1990 (2) SC 54; (2005) 6 SCC 636 - Referred
(c) Administration of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Making disparaging remarks against an officer or authority - Against a person not impleaded and causing prejudice to him - Deprecated - Principles and philosophy discussed. (Para 19, 21)
(1986) 4 SCC 566; (1990) 2 SCC 533; (2012) 6 SCC 491 - relied upon
(d) Administration of Justice - Judicial propriety - Making disparaging remarks against a person who is not a party to the lis, in his absence - Remarks not integral to adjudication of lis - Damaging reputation of the person without affording a chance to defend - Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution - Impermissible. (Para 27)
(2013) 10 SCC 591; (1989) 1 SCC 494; 217 Ala 16 : 114 So 357 : 55 ALR 171 (1927); (2012) 7 SCC 288; (2012) 8 SCC 1; (1983) 1 SCC 124; (2007) 3 SCC 587 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Reputation has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The respondent was working as Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the State of Haryana. During a state function "Sarkar Apke Dwar" the appellant on receiving verbal complaint from some person in the public including the elected representative about the working of the respondent No.1 announced suspension of the respondent during the press conference on the same day.
The respondent was placed under suspension followed by charge sheet.
The respondent filed writ petition against the suspension order which was disposed of with direction to the Government. Pursuant thereto the respondent was reinstated pending inquiry. After issuance of charge sheet and revocation of the suspension order, the respondent submitted his reply.
Nothing happened thereafter and the respondent superannuated and was granted provisional pension, provident fund and amount of Group Insurance Claim but pension as due and other retiral benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of other leaves, etc. were withheld due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
The respondent filed another writ petition which was disposed of directing the government to complete the enquiry within a period of six months. As the enquiry was not concluded within the stipulated time, the employee preferred yet another writ petition which was allowed by setting aside the charge-sheet and the punishment with further directions to release all the pension and pensionary benefits due to the 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 single Judge made certain observations against the appellant.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred LPA for expunging the adverse remarks being not at all necessary to adjudicate upon the issue involved in the matter, particularly when he was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition. The LPA was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Disparaging remarks passed by the High Court against the appellant are unwarranted and impermissible.
Result: Appeal allowed. Remarks expunged.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
1. Reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on the posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and the privileged. The aroma of reputation is an excellence which cannot be allowed to be sullied with the passage of time.
The 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.
2. We have commenced with aforesaid prefatory note because the centripodal 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 to realize the cost and seek compensation in appropriate legal forum, including civil court, though the appellant was not arrayed as a party to the writ petition, and denial of expunction of the aforesaid observations and directions by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1456 of 2009 on the foundation that the same are based on the material available on record and, in any case, grant of liberty to claim compensation or interest could not be held to be a stricture causing prejudice to the appellant who would have full opportunity of defending himself in any proceeding which may be brought by the respondent for damages or recovery of interest, is legally defensible or bound to founder on the ground that the appellant was not impleaded as a respondent to the proceeding.
Be it noted, the Division Bench has also opined that the observations made by the learned single Judge are not conclusive and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, the then Chief Minister of the State of Haryana.
3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are to be exposited are that the first respondent was working as Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the State of Haryana. On 4.2.2001 during a state function "Sarkar Apke Dwar" at Jagadhari constituency the appellant received a complaint from some person in the public, including the elected representative, about the working of the respondent No.1. The appellant after considering the verbal complaint announced the suspension of the first respondent during the press conference on the same day.
On 06.02.2001 the first respondent was placed under suspension by the letter of the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh which was followed by charge sheet dated 27.03.2002. The first respondent filed CWP No. 16025 of 2001 against the suspension order which was disposed of on 20.03.2002 with direction to the Government. On 28.03.2002 the 1st respondent was reinstated pending inquiry. After issuance of charge sheet and revocation of the suspension order, the first respondent submitted his reply on 5
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
