T.C. KAUSHIK versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1152 · Decided: 14-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
T.C. KAUSHIK 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 14, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Departmental proceedings - Initiation of - Government 
counsel distorted orders of court - Affidavit filed tendering unconditional 
C apology for the lapse - However, High Court directing the Government to 
take action against the counsel and thereafter, departmental action initiated 
- On appeal, held: Since the apology tendered appears to be honest and 
genuine, no departmental action is to be taken against the counsel -
Observations by High Court regarding lapse on the counsel's part set aside. 
D 
High Court made certain observations in its order in a writ petition that 
the appellant-Government Counsel in his letter to the Government Department 
distorted orders of the court and thereafter, filed an affidavit tendering 
unconditional apology for the lapse on his part However, High Court directed 
the Government to take appropriate action ai?:ainst the appellant and the 
Government initiated departmental action against him. Hence the present 
E appeal 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: On perus~I of the affidavit filed by the appellant-Government 
Counsel tendering unconditional apology for the lapse on his part, the same 
F appears to be honest and genuine, therefore, no further departmental action 
need be taken against the appellant. High Court ought to have accepted the 
apology tendered by the appellant instead of directing the Government to take 
appropriate action against the appellant pursuant to which the Government 
initiated departmental action against the appellant. Further, when the matter 
G came up for hearing, this Court directed the respondents not to proceed with 
the dt:partmental proceedings and the said order is still in force. Therefore, 
the observations made by the High Court in its order regarding lapse on the 
· part of the appellant are set aside. [1154-G-H; 1155-A-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4941 of2006. 
H 
1152 
T.C. KAUSHIK v. U.O.I. [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
1153 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.6.2006 of the High Court A 
of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 994/2006. 
Arun Jaitley, Mukul Rohatgi, C.M. Jayakumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal 
for the Appellant. 
• 
Satish Pandey, Pankaj Kumar Singh and Medhavi Kumar for the B 
Responndent No.3. 
Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar and K.L. Janjani for the Respondent No.5. 
R. Mohan, A.S.G., Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., P. Parmeswaran, B. Krishna 
Prasad and T.V. Ratnam for U.O.I. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
Heard Mr.Arnn Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of D 
the appellant and Mr.R.Mohan and Mr.Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG 
appearing on behalf of the respondents. 
We have perused the order passed by the High Court dt.22.06.2006 in 
Writ Petition No.994 of 2006 filed by Mis Aiges India M;irketing Pvt.Ltd. 
against Union of India and another. We are not, in this case, concerned with E 
the merits of the case put forward by the appellant or the respondents. We 
confine ourselves only to the observations made by the High Court in its 
order dt.22.06.2006 in para 11 and 12 against the appellant who was the 
advocate-on-record for Union of India. The observations made by the High 
Court in para 11 and 12 of its order reads thus :-
F 
"11. On 9th_ February, 2005, this Court simply adjourned the matter as 
the counsel for the revenue sought time to file an affidavit in reply 
of the Commissioner (Investigation). However, the Central Government 
Advocate in his letter dated 1 Ith February, 2005, apart from making 
several incorrect statements quoted hereinabove, he has falsely stated G 
that the court has granted interim relief in the matter. Today Mr.Rana, 
on instructions from Dr.Kaushik fairly states that our order dated 9th 
Feb, 2005 was not even annexed to the letter dated I Ith February, 2005 
as the same was not available on 1 lth February, 2005. It is unfortunate 
that the Central Government Advocate who is supposed to safeguard 
the interest of the Revenue should represent to the officers of the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
department that there is an interim order passed·against the Revenue 
when in fact there is none. The conduct of Central Government 
Advocate is highly deplorable to say the least. Similarly, even the 
conduct ofMr.M.G.Rao, in filing an a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.