1995 (10) TMI 243 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of adverse remarks against the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal.
2. Validity of the transfer order of D.N. Mishra.
3. Judicial propriety and restraint in making adverse comments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Propriety of Adverse Remarks Against the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal:

The appeal was filed by the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to expunge certain adverse remarks made against him by a Division Bench of the Tribunal. The remarks were made in the context of quashing a transfer order of D.N. Mishra. The Supreme Court noted that there was no allegation of malafides against the Chairman in the application challenging the transfer order. The Division Bench made strong critical comments against the Chairman without notice to him, which the Supreme Court found to be against judicial propriety. The Court observed that the Chairman had acted within his responsibilities to ensure the proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench and had written to the Chief Secretary to transfer D.N. Mishra due to his obstructive attitude. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court had previously recorded its satisfaction with the Chairman's actions, and there was no justification for the adverse remarks made by the Tribunal.

2. Validity of the Transfer Order of D.N. Mishra:

The transfer order dated 11.5.1992, which posted D.N. Mishra as Additional District Magistrate, Koraput, was issued to ensure the proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court reiterated that a transfer is an incident of service and should not be interfered with unless it is shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by malafides. The transfer of D.N. Mishra was made in public interest, and there was no permissible ground for the Tribunal to quash it. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench of the Tribunal had quashed the transfer order on the ground of malice against the Chairman, which was against the material on record and bordered on judicial impropriety.

3. Judicial Propriety and Restraint in Making Adverse Comments:

The Supreme Court expressed distress at the tenor of the impugned order, which lacked judicial propriety and sobriety. The Court quoted several portions of the order to illustrate the unwarranted adverse remarks made against the Chairman. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for sobriety and restraint in making adverse and critical comments, citing previous decisions that highlighted the importance of judicial restraint and respect. The Court reiterated that harsh or disparaging remarks should not be made unless necessary for the decision of the case. The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench of the Tribunal had misread the documents and made disparaging remarks against the Chairman based on a non-existing foundation. Consequently, all the disparaging remarks in the impugned order against the Chairman were expunged.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, expunging all the adverse remarks made against the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The Court underscored the principles of judicial propriety, restraint, and the importance of avoiding intemperate language and disparaging remarks unless absolutely necessary for deciding the case.