OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA Vs. KANWAR BHAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
January 31,2014
Om Prakash Chautala
Appellant
VERSUS
Kanwar Bhan
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NAIM [REFERRED TO]GH JAGE RAM INSPECTOR OF POLICE VS. HANS RAJ MIDHA [REFERRED TO]
R K LAKSHMANAN VS. A K SRINIVASAN [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY VS. DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN PATNAIK VS. SASHIBHUSAN KAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
A M MATHUR VS. PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BANI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. P P SHARMA IAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. CHAMAN LAL GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR DEKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. N RADHAKISHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. BABU CHAKRABORTY [REFERRED TO]
P V MAHADEVAN VS. M D TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
CHEEDELLA RADHAKRISHNA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. RADHAKRISHNAMURTHY AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-176] [REFERRED TO]RAJEEV KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. AND ORS. VS. DELHI AUTO GENERAL FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-284] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN KR. PAUL VS. ANAL ROY CHOWDHURY [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
R.N.SINGH SENGAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEEL SHARMA S/O ASHOK SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-101] [REFERRED]
M/S YOGENDRA DEV PANDEY VS. BHOPAL SAHKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT [LAWS(MPH)-2024-5-173] [REFERRED TO]
PAVAN @ PAVAN SINGHAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN SHRIVALLABHA DESHPANDE VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
K MUTHUPANDI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. G.C.R.G. MEMORIAL TRUST [LAWS(SC)-2017-11-122] [REFERRED TO]
KHOMDRAM RATAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
KHEM PRASAD SAI PAIKRA S/O SIRDHAR SAI PAIKRA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-4-58] [REFERRED]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NEPAL KRISHNA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2014-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY VS. D SANKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX VS. T.S.KUMARASWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA SKILLS PVT. LTD VS. NEERAJ KUMAR PATHAK [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-164] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SANJIV BANSAL VS. DR. MANISH BANSAL [LAWS(DLH)-2022-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
CBI VS. SHRIKANT JAIN & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
BIRENDRA KUMAR LAKARA, S/O S LAKARA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING AND ORS. VS. KAL CABLES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
SAIMAWII SAILO VS. LALHMINGMAWIA RENTHLEI [LAWS(GAU)-2022-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED VS. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-96] [REFERRED TO]
NITESH BHARGAVA VS. STATE OF M.P., THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-182] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM NAMDEO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
SUMPURNANAND VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-190] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. SATYAWATI AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-329] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-66] [REFERRED TO]
RUBA AHMED VS. HANSAL MEHTA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-214] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. C.B.I [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
DURGESH KUMAR GAUTAM VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA VS. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE BHUNESHWAR SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. AJAM [LAWS(UTN)-2017-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
TIMES NOW VS. IMKONGNUKSHI IMCHEM [LAWS(GAU)-2019-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE STAR LIMITED VS. ROCKLAND HOSPITALS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
LAMBODAR PATEL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA VS. M/S. TEHELKA.COM [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MEGHALAYA VS. AMON RANA [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN RUPCHAND MEGHWANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-171] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED VS. YUVRAJ SURESH KHAIRE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-308] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN SHRIVALLABHA DESHPANDE VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
EDITOR VS. SUKHDEV SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-161] [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS. ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2023-11-88] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted. 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 5.6.2002.
(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 5.6.2002.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.