Full Judgment Text
CA 5305/2022
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No 5305 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP (C) No 4038 of 2021)
State Bank of India and Another …Appellants
Versus
Ajay Kumar Sood …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr Justice 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2022.08.23
22:36:40 IST
Reason:
CA 5305/2022
2
1
Central Government Industrial Tribunal 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
1
“CGIT”
CA 5305/2022
3
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
CA 5305/2022
4
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 endeavor, is made by the learned counsel, appearing
for the employer to scuttle all the legal effects thereof.
Consequently, the afore apposite noticed infirmities, as,
echoed in the impugned award, to occur in Annexure P-18,
and, appertaining, to, affirmative conclusion(s), being made
qua the workman, vis-à-vis, the apposite thereto charges
drawn against him, do, necessarily acquire overwhelming
legal weight, and, also enjoin theirs being revered.
4. Be that as it may, since the impugned award, is made, in
pursuance to a petition filed, before the learned Tribunal,
by the Workman, under Section 2-A, of the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947, and, when after affording, the, fullest
adequate opportunities, to the contesting litigants, to
adduce their respective evidence(s), on the issues, falling
for consideration, the learned Tribunal proceeded to make
the impugned award, (i) thereupon the effect, if any, or the
legal effect, of, Annexure P-18, inasmuch as, it containing
evidence, in support of the conclusion(s), borne therein,
does, emphatically, become(s) subsumed, within the
canvas, and, contours, of, the evidence adduced,
respectively, by the workman, and, by the employer, before
the learned Tribunal, (ii) unless evidence emerged through
the witnesses', who testified before the learned Tribunal,
and, upon theirs being confronted with their statement(s),
CA 5305/2022
5
previously made before the Inquiry Officer, and, its making
unearthing(s), vis-à-vis, hence no credibility, being
assigned, vis-à-vis, theirs respective testification(s), made
before the learned Tribunal. However, a perusal, of,
evidence, adduced before the learned Tribunal, both by the
Workman, and, the employer, unveils, (iii) that the afore
evidence, became testified, by all the witnesses
concerned, rather with the fullest opportunity, being
afforded to the counsel, for the workman, and, to the
counsel for the employer, (iv) and, also unveils that the
counsel, for, the employer, rather omitting to, during the
process, of, his conducting their cross-examination, hence
confront them, with their previous statement, recorded
before the Inquiry Officer, for therethrough(s), his obviously
attempting to, hence impeach their respective
credibility(ies). In summa, hence the evidence adduced
before the Tribunal concerned, alone enjoins its, if deemed
fit, being appraised by this Court.
5. The learned Tribunal, had, upon consideration, of
evidence adduced, vis-à-vis, charges No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
and 9, hence concluded, qua theirs, not therethrough,
becoming proven, rather it made a conclusion, vis-à-vis,
their being lack, of, cogent evidence, or their being want,
of, adduction, of, cogent evidence, qua therewith, by the
employer, and, obviously, returned thereon(s) finding(s),
adversarial, to the employer. Consequently, hence the
appraisal, of, evidence, adduced by the
department/employer, vis-à-vis, the afore charges, does
not, merit any interference, as reading(s) thereof,
obviously, unfold qua the appraisal, of, evidence, adduced,
vis-à-vis, the afore drawn charges, hence by the learned
Tribunal, hence not, suffering from any gross mis-appraisal
thereof, nor from any stain, of, non-appraisal, of, germane
evidence, hence adduced qua therewith, by the
department/employer.
6. The ire res-controversia, erupting interse the litigants,
appertains, to findings, adversarial, to the workman,
becoming returned upon charge No. 1. Though the learned
CA 5305/2022
6
counsel appearing for the workman, contends with much
vigor, before this Court, that since the CCTV footage, does
not vividly pronounce, qua the workman, tearing the
apposite letter, thereupon findings, adversarial, to the
workman, were not amenable, to be returned upon charge
No. 1(supra). However, the afore made submission, before
this Court, by the learned counsel for the workman, is,
made without his bearing in mind, the further facet, vis-à-
vis, the workman, in his cross-examination, making
articulation(s), coined in the phraseology, "No Branch
Manager has dared to issue me letter prior to this". In
addition, with the Workman, despite his coming into
possession, of, the apposite letter, issued to him, by the
Branch Manger, especially when no evidence, contra
therewith, became adduced, by him, hence became
enjoined, to dispel the factum, of, his not tearing it, rather
ensure its production, before the Officer concerned.
However, he failed to adduce/produce the afore letter
before the Officer concerned, thereupon, dehors the CCTV
footage, not graphically displaying his tearing the apposite
letter, rather not cementing or filliping any conclusion, vis-
à-vis, perse therefrom, any exculpatory finding, becoming
amenable to be returned upon charge No. 1.”
5 We are constrained to observe that the language in the
judgment of the High Court is incomprehensible. Judgments are
intended to convey the reasoning and process of thought which
leads to the final conclusion of the adjudicating forum. The
purpose of writing a judgment is to communicate the basis of the
decision not only to the members of the Bar, who appear in the
case and to others to whom it serves as a precedent but above
all, to provide meaning to citizens who approach courts for
pursuing their remedies under the law. Such orders of the High
Court as in the present case do dis-service to the cause of
ensuring accessible and understandable justice to citizens.
6 Since the High Court has affirmed the award of the CGIT, we
have been able to arrive at an understanding of the basic facts
from the order which was challenged before the High Court.
From the record of the Court, more particularly the award of the
CA 5305/2022
7
CGIT, it emerges that though a serious charge of misconduct
was held to be established against the respondent, it has been
interfered with and the High Court has dismissed the petition
under Article 226.”
9. Following the return of notice, we have heard Mr Sanjay Kapur, counsel for the
appellant and Mr Colin Gonsalves, senior counsel for the respondent.
10. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh is
incomprehensible. This Court in appeal found it difficult to navigate through the maze of
incomprehensible language in the decision of the High Court. A litigant for whom the
judgment is primarily meant would be placed in an even more difficult position.
Untrained in the law, the litigant is confronted with language which is not heard, written
or spoken in contemporary expression. Language of the kind in a judgment defeats the
purpose of judicial writing. Judgment writing of the genre before us in appeal detracts
from the efficacy of the judicial process. The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse
or confound the reader behind the veneer of complex language. The judge must write to
provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for
decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges.
Judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court also serve as precedents to
guide future benches. A judgment must make sense to those whose lives and affairs
are affected by the outcome of the case. While a judgment is read by those as well who
have training in the law, they do not represent the entire universe of discourse.
CA 5305/2022
8
Confidence in the judicial process is predicated on the trust which its written word
generates. If the meaning of the written word is lost in language, the ability of the
adjudicator to retain the trust of the reader is severely eroded.
11. We are constrained to remit the proceedings back to the High Court for
consideration afresh. The judgment of the High Court is simply incomprehensible
leaving this Court with no option than to remand the proceedings. The High Court must
appreciate the delay and expense occasioned as a consequence and must make an
effort to record reasons which are understood by all stake-holders.
12. Earlier too, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Aluminium and
2 3
Conductors , Sarla Sood v. Pawan Kumar Sharma , this Court had to remand the
proceedings arising out of similar judgments of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, so
that orders could be passed afresh in language which is capable of being understood.
4
In Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh as well, a two Judge Bench of this
Court, was faced with an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which made
it difficult to discern between the submissions of counsel and the reasons of the court.
Laying emphasis on the purpose of a judgment, this Court elaborated on what should
be the content of a judgment. The court observed that:
33. […] “Judgment” means a judicial opinion which tells the story
of the case; what the case is about; how the court is resolving
2
Civil Appeal No. 5032 of 2022, Supreme Court of India
3
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7768-7769 of 2017, Supreme Court of India
4
(2021) SCC OnLine SC 672
CA 5305/2022
9
the case and why. “Judgment” is defined as any decision given
by a court on a question or questions or issue between the
parties to a proceeding properly before court. It is also defined as
the decision or the sentence of a court in a legal proceeding
along with the reasoning of a judge which leads him to his
decision. The term “judgment” is loosely used as judicial opinion
or decision. Roslyn Atkinson, J., Supreme Court of Queensland,
in her speech once stated that there are four purposes for any
judgment that is written:
i) to spell out judges own thoughts;
ii) to explain your decision to the parties;
iii) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public;
and
iv) to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider
34. It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also
be reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. [….] What
the court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what
the court decides.
35. Every judgment contains four basic elements and they are (i)
statement of material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or
questions, (iii) deliberation to reach at decision and (iv) the ratio
or conclusive decision. A judgment should be coherent,
systematic and logically organised. It should enable the
reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis
of legal principles. It is pertinent to examine the important
elements in a judgment in order to fully understand the art of
reading a judgment. In the Path of Law, Holmes J. has stressed
the insentient factors that persuade a judge. A judgment has to
formulate findings of fact, it has to decide what the relevant
principles of law are, and it has to apply those legal principles to
the facts. The important elements of a judgment are:
i) Caption
ii) Case number and citation
iii) Facts
iv) Issues
v) Summary of arguments by both the parties
vi) Application of law
vii) Final conclusive verdict
CA 5305/2022
10
36. The judgment replicates the individuality of the judge and
therefore it is indispensable that it should be written with care
and caution. The reasoning in the judgment should be
intelligible and logical. Clarity and precision should be the
goal. All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly
recorded. The findings and directions should be precise and
specific. Writing judgments is an art, though it involves
skillful application of law and logic. We are conscious of the
fact that the judges may be overburdened with the pending
cases and the arrears, but at the same time, quality can never be
sacrificed for quantity. Unless judgment is not in a precise
manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There are some
judgments that eventually get overruled because of lack of
clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it should have
clarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rival
parties; discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning and
thereafter the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter
the operative portion of the order. There must be a clarity on the
final relief granted. A party to the litigation must know what
actually he has got by way of final relief. The aforesaid aspects
are to be borne in mind while writing the judgment, which would
reduce the burden of the appellate court too. We have come
across many judgments which lack clarity on facts, reasoning
and the findings and many a times it is very difficult to appreciate
what the learned judge wants to convey through the judgment
and because of that, matters are required to be remanded for
fresh consideration. Therefore, it is desirable that the judgment
should have a clarity, both on facts and law and on submissions,
findings, reasonings and the ultimate relief granted.
(emphasis supplied)
13. Amidst an overburdened judicial docket, a view is sometimes voiced that parties are
concerned with the outcome and little else. This view proceeds on the basis that parties
value the outcome and not the reasoning which constitutes the foundation. This view
undervalues the importance of the judicial function and of the reasons which are critical to
CA 5305/2022
11
it. The work of a judge cannot be reduced to a statistic about the disposal of a case. Every
judgment is an incremental step towards consolidation and change. In adhering to
precedent, the judgment reflects a commitment to protecting legal principle. This imparts
certainty to the law. Each judgment is hence a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental
precepts on which a legal order is based. But in incremental steps a judgment addresses
the need to evolve and to transform by addressing critical issues which confront human
existence. Courts are as much engaged in the slow yet not so silent process of bringing
about a social transformation. How good or deficient they are in that quest is tested by the
quality of the reasons as much as by the manner in which the judicial process is
structured.
14. Lord Burrows of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in his speech at the
Annual Conference of Judges of the Superior Courts in Ireland stressed upon the
5
importance of clarity, coherence and conciseness in judgment writing. Lord Burrows
also noted the importance of the judgment being written in a manner that it is accessible
6
to all considering its wide and varied potential audience. He noted:
For senior judges, one‟s target audience must include the parties
themselves, the legal advisers to those parties, other judges,
other practising lawyers, academic lawyers and students, and
last but by no means least the public at large.
Lord Burrows also reiterates the view of Lord Bingham, that a judgment which is
5
Lord Burrows, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Judgment-Writing: A Personal Perspective, Annual
Conference of Judges of the Superior Courts in Ireland, 20 May 2021
6
Ibid
CA 5305/2022
12
7
unclear or not concise and therefore inaccessible may contradict the rule of law:
(T)here is the view that a judgment that is unclear or not concise
and therefore inaccessible may contradict the rule of law. The
great Lord Bingham – a master of judgment-writing if ever there
was one – suggested this in his book, The Rule of Law. Having
laid down as his first concretised element of the rule of law that
„the law must be accessible‟ he went on as follows:
„The judges are quite ready to criticise the obscurity and
complexity of legislation. But those who live in glass
houses are ill-advised to throw stones. The length,
elaboration and prolixity of some common law judgments…
can in themselves have the effect of making the law to
some extent inaccessible.‟
15. In a piece of academic writing, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez of the Supreme Court
of Israel distinguished between academic writing and judgment writing. While alluding to
8
the importance of judgments being written in an accessible manner, Justice Daphne
Barak-Erez notes:
For judges, the professional community is only one of their
several audiences. Judges write first and foremost for the parties
appearing before them, for the state's agents who are in charge
of enforcement, and for the public. Although judgments are
professional legal documents, and sometimes involve complex
technical and legal analyses, they should also be accessible, or
at least explicable, to people who are not professionals, as they
define the law for a larger community.
16. A judgment culminates in a conclusion. But its content represents the basis for
the conclusion. A judgment is hence a manifestation of reason. The reasons provide the
basis of the view which the decision maker has espoused, of the balances which have
7
Ibid
8
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez, Writing Law: Reflections on Judicial Decisions and Academic Scholarship, (2015) 41-
UEEN S AW OURNAL
1 Q ' L J 255
CA 5305/2022
13
been drawn. That is why reasons are crucial to the legitimacy of a judge's work. They
provide an insight into judicial analysis, explaining to the reader why what is written has
been written. The reasons, as much as the final conclusion, are open to scrutiny. A
judgment is written primarily for the parties in a forensic contest. The scrutiny is first and
foremost by the person for whom the decision is meant - the conflicting parties before
the court. At a secondary level, reasons furnish the basis for challenging a judicial
outcome in a higher forum. The validity of the decision is tested by the underlying
content and reasons. But there is more. Equally significant is the fact that a judgment
speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes taken singularly or in
combination have an impact upon human lives. Hence, a judgment is amenable to
wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond the immediate contest in a courtroom.
Citizens, researchers and journalists continuously evaluate the work of courts as public
institutions committed to governance under law. Judgment writing is hence a critical
instrument in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.
17. Judgment writing is a layered exercise. In one layer, a judgment addresses the
concerns and arguments of parties to a forensic contest. In another layer, a judgment
addresses stake-holders beyond the conflict. It speaks to those in society who are
impacted by the discourse. In the layered formulation of analysis, a judgment speaks to
the present and to the future. Whether or not the writer of a judgment envisions it, the
written product remains for the future, representing another incremental step in societal
CA 5305/2022
14
dialogue. If a judgment does not measure up, it can be critiqued and criticized. Behind
the layers of reason is the vision of the adjudicator over the values which a just society
must embody and defend. In a constitutional framework, these values have to be
grounded in the Constitution. The reasons which a judge furnishes provides a window -
an insight - into the work of the court in espousing these values as an integral element
of the judicial function.
18. Many judgments do decide complex questions of law and of fact. Brevity is an
unwitting victim of an overburdened judiciary. It is also becoming a victim of the cut-
copy-paste convenience afforded by software developers. This Court has been
providing headings and sub-headings to assist the reader in providing a structured
sequence. Introduced and popularized in judgment writing by Lord Denning, this
9
development has been replicated across jurisdictions.
19. Lord Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court of the United
10
Kingdom, discussed in the course of a lecture the importance of clearly written
judgments:
A second small change worth considering would be for more
judges to give better guidance to the structure and contents of
their longer Judgments. Some judges already provide a clear
framework, sometimes with a table of contents, a roadmap, at
the beginning, and often with appropriate headings, signposts,
throughout the Judgment. Kimble‟s study confirms that this is not
9
Supra (Lord Burrows)
10
Lord Neuberger, No Judgment – No Justice, First Annual British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) Lecture
(20 November 2012)
CA 5305/2022
15
just a good discipline but it is what the legal professional readers
want, and, if it is what lawyers want, it is a fortiori what non-
lawyers will want. A clear structure aids accessibility.
20. It is also useful for all judgments to carry paragraph numbers as it allows for ease
of reference and enhances the structure, improving the readability and accessibility of
the judgments. A Table of Contents in a longer version assists access to the reader.
21. On the note of accessibility, the importance of making judgments accessible to
persons from all sections of society, especially persons with disability needs emphasis.
All judicial institutions must ensure that the judgments and orders being published by
them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they end up making the documents
inaccessible for persons with visual disability who use screen readers to access them.
On the same note, courts and tribunals must also ensure that the version of the
judgments and orders uploaded is accessible and signed using digital signatures. They
should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning
documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose.
The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make
documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens.
22. In terms of structuring judgments, it would be beneficial for courts to structure
them in a manner such that the „Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion‟ are easily
identifiable. The well-renowned „IRAC‟ method generally followed for analyzing cases
and structuring submissions can also benefit judgments when it is complemented by
CA 5305/2022
16
recording the facts and submissions.
23. The „Issue‟ refers to the question of law that the court is deciding. A court may be
dealing with multiple issues in the same judgment. Identifying these issues clearly helps
structure the judgment and provides clarity for the reader on the specific issue of law
being decided in a particular segment of a judgment. The „Rule‟ refers to the portion of
the judgment which distils the submissions of counsel on the applicable law and
doctrine for the issue identified. This rule is applied to the facts of the case in which the
issue has arisen. The analysis recording the reasoning of a court forms the „Application‟
section.
24. Finally, it is always useful for a court to summarize and lay out the „Conclusion‟
on the basis of its determination of the application of the rule to the issue along with the
decision vis-à-vis the specific facts. This allows stakeholders, especially members of
the bar as well as judges relying upon the case in the future, to concisely understand
the holding of the case.
25. Justice M.M. Corbett, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Africa,
11
in a lecture at an orientation course for new judges, recommended a similar structure
which facilitates orderliness and produces a logical, flowing judgment:
(a) An introductory section;
(b) Setting out of the facts:
(c) The law and the issues;
11
Justice M.M. Corbett, Writing a Judgment - Address at the First Orientation Course for New Judges , (1998) 115 S OUTH
FRICAN AW OURNAL
A L J 116
CA 5305/2022
17
(d) Applying the law to the facts;
(e) Determining the relief (including order for costs); and
(f) Finally, the order of the Court.
26. Although it is unfortunate that we have to set aside the impugned judgment and
direct its remand due to its incoherence, we have taken the opportunity to lay out the
above discussion on judgment writing. Incoherent judgments have a serious impact
upon the dignity of our institutions.
27. While we have laid down some broad guidelines, individual judges can indeed
have different ways of writing judgments and continue to have variations in their styles
of expression. The expression of a judge is an unfolding of the recesses of the mind.
However, while recesses of the mind may be inscrutable, the reasoning in judgment
cannot be. While judges may have their own style of judgment writing, they must ensure
12
lucidity in writing across these styles. This has also been captured by Justice Corbett,
in the following extract:
For lucidity should be the prime aim of any judgment-writer. At
the same time, certain aspects of style have a bearing on
lucidity. In this connection, my advice (for what it is worth) is to
keep your language and your sentence construction simple.
Write in short sentences and do not try to pack too many
ideas into a single sentence. Particularly in setting out facts,
try to maintain a simple, straightforward flow to your
narrative. Try to avoid the repetition of words or phrases
and observe the normal rules of grammar. A well-known
exponent of simple language and the simple sentence was Lord
Denning.
(emphasis supplied)
12
Ibid
CA 5305/2022
18
28. Echoing a similar sentiment, Justice Michael Kirby, a distinguished former judge
13
of the High Court of Australia notes:
Brevity, simplicity and clarity. These are the hallmarks of good
judgment writing. But the greatest of these is clarity.
29. In view of the incomprehensibility of the impugned judgment, we allow the appeal
and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 27 November
2020 in CWPs No 3597 of 2020 along with 4844 of 2020.
30. CWPs No 3597 of 2020 along with 4844 of 2020 are restored to the file of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh for being considered afresh. In paragraphs 3 and 6 of
the earlier order of this Court dated 12 March 2021, certain observations are contained
on the merits of the award of the CGIT and on the finding of misconduct which was
arrived at against the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. Since the proceedings
are being remitted back to the High Court, it is clarified on the request of counsel for the
respondent, that all the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.
31. Considering that the writ petitions were filed in 2020 and the termination of
service goes back to the year 2013, we would request the High Court to expedite the
disposal of the writ petitions.
13
Justice Michael Kirby, On the Writing of Judgments, (1990) 64 A USTRALIAN L AW J OURNAL 691
CA 5305/2022
19
32. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
……….....…...….......………………........J.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
……….....…...….......………………........J.
[A S Bopanna]
New Delhi;
August 16, 2022