2006 (11) TMI 355 - SC - Indian Laws

Apology - Held that - Appeal allowed. As the affidavit of apology appears to be honest and genuine. The High Court ought to have accepted the apology tendered by the appellant instead of directing the Revenue Secretary of the Central Government and the C.B.E.C, New Delhi to take appropriate action as they - hus set aside the observations made by the High Court and allow the appeal to the said extent.

Summary

Issues involved:
High Court observations on conduct of Central Government Advocate, tendering of unconditional apology by Dr. T.C. Kaushik, departmental action initiated against Dr. T.C. Kaushik, setting aside High Court observations, future caution advised to the appellant.

Analysis:

1. High Court Observations on Conduct of Central Government Advocate:
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's order concerning the conduct of the Central Government Advocate in misrepresenting facts regarding an interim order. The High Court criticized the Advocate's behavior as deplorable and recommended appropriate action against him. The Supreme Court acknowledged the observations but focused solely on the apology tendered by Dr. T.C. Kaushik, the appellant.

2. Tendering of Unconditional Apology by Dr. T.C. Kaushik:
Dr. T.C. Kaushik, the Additional Government Counsel, filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for the inaccuracies in his letter dated 11-2-2005. The affidavit expressed respect for the Court's orders and clarified the absence of any intention to distort facts. The Supreme Court found the apology to be honest and genuine, emphasizing that the High Court should have accepted it instead of directing departmental action against Dr. T.C. Kaushik.

3. Departmental Action Initiated Against Dr. T.C. Kaushik:
Following the High Court's directive, the Government of India initiated departmental action against Dr. T.C. Kaushik. However, the Supreme Court intervened, ordering a halt to the proceedings. The Court deemed Dr. T.C. Kaushik's apology sincere and decided that no further departmental action was necessary, thereby setting aside the High Court's observations and allowing the appeal to that extent.

4. Setting Aside High Court Observations and Future Caution:
In its final decision, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's observations in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its order. While allowing the appeal, the Court advised the appellant, Dr. T.C. Kaushik, to exercise greater care in handling matters entrusted to him by the Union of India in the future. The Court emphasized the importance of diligence and accuracy in such responsibilities.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment primarily focused on the sincerity of Dr. T.C. Kaushik's apology, leading to the setting aside of the High Court's directives for departmental action. The Court highlighted the need for caution and attentiveness in handling legal matters, especially when representing the Union of India.