Supreme Court of India
PRAKASH SINGH TEJIversusNORTHERN INDIA GOODS TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 537
- Decided
- 16 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K G BALAKRISHNAN
Holding
The adverse remarks and directions of the High Court were not warranted and must be expunged.
Summary
The appellant, a Delhi Higher Judicial Service officer, dismissed a 1984 suit for recovery on 19‑December‑2005 after the plaintiff failed to produce evidence. On appeal, the Delhi High Court remanded the case and, in its order dated 6 July 2006, made adverse remarks about the appellant’s conduct, directing that the order be placed in his personal/service record and before the inspecting judge. The appellant sought expunction of those remarks, arguing they were unwarranted, that he was not given an opportunity to explain, and that they led to a downgrade of his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) from B+ to B, affecting his promotion prospects. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s remarks and directions were justified under established principles governing judicial discipline and expunction. Relying on A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) and the ‘K A Judicial Officer’ (2001) decisions, the Court held that the remarks were neither necessary for the decision nor justified, and ordered their expungement. The appeals were allowed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in making adverse remarks and directing placement of its order in the appellant's personal/service record without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether such remarks constitute harassment and warrant expunction under the principles laid down in judicial discipline jurisprudence.
Subjects
judicial disciplineadverse remarksexpunctionservice recordannual confidential reportjudicial restraintservice lawappellate jurisdiction
Judgment
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 278
..._'
A PRAKASH SINGH TEJI
v.
NORTHERN INDIA GOODS TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2586-2587 of 2009)
APRIL 16, 2009
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Judiciary - Higher judiciary - Adverse remarks -
Expunction of - Adverse remarks against judicial officer by
c High Court while remanding the case - Direction to place
judgment in personal1service record of judicial officer and also
before Inspecting Judge for perusal - Subsequently, ACR of
B+ downgraded to B - Justification of - Held: Remarks and
directions not justified - Judicial restraint and discipline are
D necessary to the orderly administration of justice - There
should be a quality of restraint, humility in decision making
- Direction of High Court without giving opportunity to the
Judicial Officer would affect his career - More so, Judicial
officer's ACR from 2000 to 2006 was consistently graded as
E B+ ~ He was promoted to super-time scale and recently made
Designated Judge, NDPS - In the interest of justice and
fairness, offending remarks against Judicial Officer are
expunged - Service law - Judicial restraint - Judicial
discipline. ...
F Judicial discipline - Adverse remarks against judicial
officer- To be avoided particularly if officer has no occasion
to put forth his reasonings - Harsh or disparaging remarks
are not to be made against persons and authorities whose
conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless
G it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an
integral part thereof.
Appellant-Judicial Officer dismissed the suit for
recovery since the plaintiff failed to lead evidence despite
H 278
PRAKASH SINGH TEJI v. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS 279
TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR.
\ sufficient opportunities given to him. In appeal, High A
Court while remanding the case to the trial court, passed ._-;.
adverse remarks against the appellant and issued
directions for placing the said judgment in the personal/
service record of the appellant and also before the
Inspecting Judge for its perusal. Thereafter, High Court B
disposed of the application for expunction of remarks
stating that the remarks are corrective in nature and did
not suggest any lack of integrity on part of the officer.
Subsequently ACR of the appellant was downgraded
from B+ (which was given to him for past seven years) c
to B. The representation against the same was also
rejected. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
Held:1.1. As per the appellant, by making the remarks D
behind his back, the High Court failed to appreciate
certain relevant facts. The suit which was decided by the
appellant on 19.12.2005 was filed in the year 1984 and the
plaintiff was g.iven sufficient opportunities to lead
evidence. The evidence which the plaintiff had already E
lead when the suit was pending in the Delhi High Court
was in fact tagged with the order sheet and the
documents on which the plaintiff was relying were not
... even exhibited. In view of this the mistake occurred was
neither deliberate nor intentional. It was also highlighted F
that the deposition of witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 was not
arranged properly in the file and the same were not
. traceable. Insofar as evidence of P.W.3 is concerned,
according to the appellant, no order sheet reflects that
the evidence was actually recorded on 15.04.1991. It was
G
highlighted that the High Court failed to appreciate that
the statement of P.Ws was attached with the order sheet
and it was not arranged or placed where it should have
been placed as per Rules 8 and 9 of the Delhi High Court
H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A (Original Side) Rules, 1967. Appellant also highlighted that
..
'
his ACR from 2000 to 2006 has been consistently graded
as B+ and he was also promoted by the High Court to
the Super··time Scale and recently assigned with much
more responsibility and onerous task of presiding as a
B Designated Judge/Special Judge, NDPS. [Paras 8 and 9)
[285-F, G, H; 286-A-D]
1.2. In the facts and circumstances and the materials
available, the remarks/observations and the directions
made in para 10 of the order dated 06.07.2006 are not
C warranted. Judicial restraint and discipline are as
necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they
are to the effectives of the army. The duty of a restraint,
humility should be constant theme of the Judges. This
quality in decision making is as much necessary for
D Judges to command respect as to protect the
independence of the judiciary. [Para 10) (286-E, F]
A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and Ors. (1990) 2
sec 533, relied on.
E 1.3. The ultimate decision of the High Court in
remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal is
not undermined. However, it is observed that the higher
Courts every day come across orders of the lower courts
which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify
F them or set them aside. The legal system of the country
acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it
provides for appeals and revisions. A Judge tries to
discharge his duties to the best of his capacity, however,
sometimes he is likely to err. The lower judicial officers
G mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are
constantly under psychological pressure. They do not
have the benefits which are available in the higher courts.
In those circumstances, remarks/observations and
strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has
H
PRAKASH SINGH TEJI v. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS 281
TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR.
no occasion to put forth his reasonings. [Para 11] [286· A
G, H; 287wA1 BJ
1.4. In the light of the principles and In view of the
explanation as stated by the appellant for commenting the
conduct of the plaintiff, those observations and directions
B
are not warranted. It is settled law that harsh or
disparaging rernarks are not to be made against persons
and authorities whose conduct cornes into consideration
~
before Courts of law unless it is really necessal'.Y for the
decision of the case as an integral part thereof. The
direction of the High Court placing copy of their order on c
the personal/service record of the appellant and a further
direction for placing copy of the order before the /
Inspecting Judge of the officer for perusal that too without
giving him an opportunity would, undoubtedly, affect his
. career. Based on the said direction, there is every D
.(_ possibility of taking adverse decision about the
performance of the appellant. The adverse remarks inade
against the appellant was neither justified nor called for.
In the interest of justice and fairness, the offending
remarks made against the.appellant in para .10 of the E
impugned order of the High Court are expunged. [Para
.. 13 and 14] [287-G, H; 288~A-D]
lri the matter of 'K' A Judicial Officer (2001 ~ 3 SCC 54,
relied on. '•
F
Case Law Reference:
(1990) 2 sec 533 Relied on. Para 10
. (2001) 3 sec 54 Relied on. Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No . G
. 2586-2587 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.07.2006 and
23.03.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi In R.F.A.
No. 178/2006 and in C.M. No. 13584/2006 in RF.A. No. 178 H
28'2 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·[2009) 6 S.C.R.
..,.)
A of 2006.
P.S. Patwalia, Aman Preet Singh Rahi, D.K. Tripathi,
Tushar Bakshi and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellant.
Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia, and Surbhi Mehta (for
B Mahinder Singh) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals, by special leave, arise from the
C judgment and final orders of the High Court of Delhi. dated
06.07.2006 and 23.03.2007 in RF.A No.178 of 2006 and in
C.M. No. 13584 of 2006 in RF.A No.178 of 2006 respectiveiy
whereby the High Court declined to expunge the adverse
remarks made against the appellant. The appellant, who is a
D. Judicial Officer, is now challenging the judgment dated
06.07.2006 of the High Court to the limited extent whereby the
Division Bench passed certain adverse remarks against him.
3. The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder:
E (c;i) The appellant, who i~ a Member of the Delhi Higher
Judicial Service, posted as Addi. District and .
Sessions Judge, Delhi, was transferred in the place
of Shri Satnam Singh, Addi. District and Sessions
·Judge on 13.09.2005. A suit for recovery which was ..
F. filed in the year 1984 in the Delhi High Court by the
first respondent against second respondent herein,
subsequently on enhancement of the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, was transferred
to the- District Court.
G (b) As sufficient opportunities were given to the plaintiff l....
to lead evidence, the appellant, on 19.12.2005, _
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereafter, an
appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the said
judgment and the High Court, by the impugned
H judgment dated 06.07.2006, allowed the appeal of
PRAKASH SINGH TEJI v. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS 283
TRANSP. CO: LTD. & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
~
the plaintiff and remanded the case to the trial Court. A
The High Court, while remanding the case, made
certain remarks and directions against the
appellant. When the file of the aforesaid suit was
put up before the appellant for retrial, then only he
noticed the adverse remarks made against him by B
the High Court. The appellant immediately filed an
. application in the High Court for expunction of the
~ aforesaid remarks. The High Court, by order dated
23.03.2007, disposed of the application stating that
the remarks are only corrective In nature and do not
suggest any lack of integrity on the part of the
c
officer.
(c) The Annual Confidential Report (in short "ACR") of
the appellant from the years 2000 to 2006 has been
consistently graded as B+ and the High Court has D
.(
promoted him to the Super-time Scale also. The
ACR for the year 2006 was communicated to him
on 21.08.2007, On the basis of his service record
w.e.f. 12.09.2007 he had assigned much more
responsible and onerous task of presiding as a E
Designated Judge/Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala
House Court, New Delhi for conducting the trial of
NDPS cases. The High Court, vide letter dated
,. 01.08.2008, has communicated to the appellant the
...., ACR for the year 2007 which has been .F
downgraded from 8+ to 8. Therefore, he submitted
his representation to the High Court for review of
the said ACR. He reliably came to ~now that the
said ACR has been downgraded on the basis of
the remarks in the judgment dated 06.07.2006 G
.,,..;. passed in RF.A. No. 178 of 2006. To the best
knowledge of the appellant, there is no report or
..... complaint about his work or conduct by anyone in
the year 2007. If the said remarks in the judgment
·dated 06.07.2006 are not expunged, it would affect H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.
.,.'
A his future prospects and if the same are allowed to
stay and the ACR is not re-casted, the appellant
would suffer substantial loss in future as tie has left
with eight years of service for superannuation and
he is in the zone of consideration for elovation to
B the Bench of the Delhi High Court.
4. While granting permission to file special leavo petition,
this Court has fmpleaded the High Court of Delhi as party
respondent. Pursuant to the Issuance of notice to the High Court
of Def hi, a reply hec beon filed atating that as por tho ludgmont
c of the High Court dated 06.07.2006, o copy of tho oeid
judgment wao placod In the porsonol flle/oorvlco rocord of the
appellant 011 eloo boforo tho then Hon'ble Inspecting ,Judgo for
tho yoar 2006. Tho oppollont woo grodod as B+ for 1ho yooro
2000 to 2006 by the Full Court of tho Delhi High Cou1t. On tho
D baols of his performance at the relevant time, ho wao granted
Super-time Scale of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Thereafter,
he was posted as Addi. Sessions Judge, NDPS at Patiala
House Courts w.e:f. 12.09.2007. On consideration c1f overall
performance of the appellant during the year 2007, the
E Committee of Hon'ble Inspecting Judges in the meeting held
on 15.07 2008, for the year 2007 recorded his ACR as B. The
said remarks were communicated to him by !ettm dated
01.08.2008. On a complaint .dated nil made by one ~ihri G.S.
...
Gorkaf, the Committee of Hon'bfe Inspecting Judges for the year
:-
F 2008 ordered that the same may be considered at tho time of
awarding ACR grading. The appellant had made reprei•entation
dated 19.08.2008 for review of Grade B for the year 2007. The
said representation was duly considered and rejecled by a
decision dated 01.09.2908 of the Full Court and the SE1me was
G communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 22.0~.2008. ..
5. We heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsE1I for the
3rd respondent, High Court of Delhi.
H
PRAKASH SINGH TEJI v. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS 285
TRANSP. qo. LTD. & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
\
6. The questions which arise for consideration are: A
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the High Court was justified In making adverse
remarks/observations and directions against the
appellant In its judgment dated 06.07.2006;
B
(b) Whether Its further direction for placing the said
;. Judgment In the personal/service record of the
appellant and also before the Hon'ble Inspecting
Judge for paruaal Is warranted?
7. Before conBlderlng the grievance of the appellant, It
c
would be useful to refer the remarka/dlractlona of the High Court
In the order dated 06.07.2006 which rea~a thus:
ueefore parting, we wish to make It clear that the learned
, Judge who passed the Impugned Judgment and decree 0
need be careful In future, rather than adopting a hasty, slip
shod and perfunctory approach as Is manifest from the
judgment delivered by him In this case. We further direct
that a copy of this order shall be placed on the personal/
service record of the officer, while another copy be placed E
before the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of the officer for His
Lordship's perusal."
8. According to the appellant, by making such remarks
b.ehind his back, the High Court failed to appreciate certain F
relevant facts. !twas pointed out that the suit which was decided
by the appellant on 19.12.2005 was filed in the year 1984 and
the plaintiff was given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence.
The evidence which the plaintiff had already lead when the suit
was pending in the Delhi High Court was In fact tagged with G
,..i
"'the order sheet and the documents on which the plaintiff was
relying were not even exhibited. According to the appellant, in
view of this the mistake occurred was neither deliberate nor
intentional. It was also highlighted that the deposition of
witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 was not arranged properly In the
H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A file and the same were not traceable. Insofar as evid1mce of
· · P.W.3 is concerned, according to the appellant, no orde!r sheet
reflects that the evidence was actually recorded on 15.04.1991.
It was highlighted that the High Court failed to appreciate that
the statement of P.Ws was attached with the order sh1~et and
B it was not arranged or placed where it should have been placed .
as per Rules 8 and 9 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 1967.
9. Apart from the above explanation with referenc1~ to the
alleged lapse as pointed out by the Division BenGh, the
C appellant has highlighted that his ACR from 2000 to 2c106 has
been consistently graded as B+ and he was also prom ::>ted by
the High Court to the Super-time Scale and recently ai;signed
with much more responsibility and onerous task of presiding as
a Designated Judge/Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House,
D New Delhi.
10. In the light of the explanation, we also peruse:! those
relevant materials. As rightly highlighted and pointed out by Mr.
P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellan':, in the
E facts and circumstances and the materials available, we are
satisfied that the remarks/observations and the directions made
in para 10 of the order dated 06.07.2006 are not warranted.
Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly
administration of justice as they are to the effectives of the army.
As observed in AM. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and
F Others, (1990) 2 SCC 533, the duty of a restraint, humility
should be constant theme of our Judges. This quality in clecision
making is as much necessary for Judges to command respect
as to protect the independence of the judiciary.
.f
G 11. We are not undermining the ultimate decision of the
High Court in remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh
disposal. However, we are constrained to observe that the
higher Courts every day come across orders of the lower courts
which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them
H
... PRAKASH SINGH TEJI v. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS 287
TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
~
or set them aside. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility A
.- ' of the Judges, hence it provides for appeals and revisions. A
·-Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity,
however, sometimes is likely to err. It has to be noted that the
lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere.
and are constantly under psychological pressure. They do not. B
have the benefits which are available in the higher courts. In
those circumstances, remarks/observations and strictures are
~J
to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put
forth his reasonings.
12. In the matter of: 'K' A Judicial Officer, (2001) 3 SCC c
54, it was held that any passage from an order or judgment may
be expunged or directed to be expunged subject to satisfying
the following tests: (i) that the passage complained of is wholly
irrelevant and unjustifiable; (ii) that its retention on the records
· will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers; (iii) D
.. that its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment
or order. In para 12, it was further held _that ihough the power
to make remarks or observations. is there but on being
.questioned, the exercise of power must withstand judicial
scrutiny on· the touchstone of following tests: (a) whether the E
party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has
an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether
there is evidence ori record bearing on that conduct justifying
.,. the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of
the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that F
conduct. The overall test is that the criticism or observation must
be judicial in nature arid should not formally depart from
sobriety, moderation and reserve.
13. In the light of the above principles and in view of the
explanation as stated by the appellant for commenting the G
conduct of the plaintiff, we are satisfied that those observations
anq directions are not warranted. It is settled law that harsh or
disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and
authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. -·
I
A Courts of law unless It is really necessary for the d1~cision of . i-
the case as an integral part thereof. The direction of the High
Court placing copy of their order on the personal/service record
of the appellant and a further direction for placing copy of the
order before the Inspecting Judge of the officer for perusal that
B too without giving him an opportunity would, undoubtedly, affect
his career. Based on the above direction, there is every
possibility of taking adverse decision about the performance
of the appellant. We hold that the adverse remarks made .\ .
against the appellant was neither justified nor called for.
c 14. In the interest of justice and fairness, we expunge the .
offending remarks made against the appellant in para 10 of the
impugned order of the High Court of Delhi, dated 06.07.2006.
Since these appeals are confined only to expungi11g of the
adverse remarks, the same are allowed. No costs.
D
N.J. Appeals allowed. ..
"
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "judicial discipline"Sign in to search