T.C. Kaushik v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan
Al Tamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2006-11-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The High Court’s observations about the appellant’s lapse are set aside; no further departmental action shall be taken against the appellant, and the Government’s stay on disciplinary action remains in force. No costs.
Final Disposition: Partly Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. T.C. Kaushik

Respondents

Union of India and Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Arun Jaitley
• Mukul Rohatgi
• C.M. Jayakumar
• Rameshwar Prasad Goyal

Counsels for Respondents

• R. Mohan
• A.S.G.
• Mohan Parasaran
• P. Parmeswaran
• B. Krishna Prasad
• T.V. Ratnam

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns a writ-petition related dispute arising from observations by the Bombay High Court that the Union of India’s government counsel distorted court orders and subsequently filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology. The appellant, Dr. T.C. Kaushik, Additional Government Counsel, submitted an affidavit asserting bona fide intent to comply with the court’s orders and to rectify misstatements in a February 2005 letter to the Settlement Commissioner. The High Court, in its writ petition order dated 22 June 2006, directed the Government to initiate departmental action against Kaushik and another official. The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the writ petition but scrutinized whether the apology was honest and genuine. It held that the affidavit of apology appeared sincere and bona fide, and therefore no further departmental action should be taken against Kaushik. The Court noted that its own stay order, issued on 28 August 2006, remained in force, and that the High Court’s remarks about the appellant’s lapse should be set aside. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed to reverse those observations, with a caution to exercise greater care in future duties. The final disposition is that the appeal is partly allowed and no costs awarded, preserving the appellant’s position while keeping the stay in force.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bona fide (genuine intent)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the unconditional-apology affidavit dated 27 March 2006 reflects bona fide intent to rectify misstatements and comply with the Court’s orders. There was no malafide motive or intent to obstruct judicial processes. The February 2005 letter’s statements were not intended to distort, and the apology should have been accepted. The High Court’s directed action and subsequent departmental proceedings were based on observations that the Supreme Court later found to be unwarranted. The Supreme Court had stayed further departmental action under its August 28, 2006 order, and this stay remains in force; as such, no further action should be taken, and the matter should be treated as closed, subject to future caution in duties.

Contentions of Respondents

The Union of India contends that disciplinary action was warranted because the counsel’s conduct misled the court and harmed the integrity of judicial proceedings. While the apology may be sincere, the government must retain authority to impose disciplinary measures to preserve institutional integrity. The stay order does not nullify the government’s disciplinary powers; rather, it reflects a temporary safeguard while the Court considers the matter. The respondents seek that the observations of the High Court be preserved to maintain deterrence, and that the appropriate action may be reconsidered in light of evidence and the ongoing inquiry, ensuring accountability for the conduct of government counsel.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## T.C. KAUSHIK _v._ ## UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ## NOVEMBER 14, 2006 ## B [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 H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4941 of2006. 1152 1153 T.C. KAUSHIK v. U.O.I. [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.] • From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.6.2006 of the High Court 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. 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 "[.... ] 1154 ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A B ## c 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 affidavit is totally contrary to the stand of the Customs Department set out in the affidavit in reply filed by the Joint Commissioner of Custo~s. . 12. Dr.T.C.Kaushik who is personally present before us today has tendered unconditional apology and has filed an affidavit to that effect in writing on 27th March, 2006. In these circumstances, we leave it to the Revenue Secretary of the Central Government and to the C.B.E.C., New Delhi to take appropriate action as they deem fit against Dr.T.C.Kaushik and.Mr.M.G. Rao." The appellant-Dr.T.C.Kaushik filed an affidavit tendering his unconditional apology for the lapse on his part. The affidavit filed by him reads as follows :- ## D ## "Affidavit of T.C. Kaushik" - I. I, Dr.T.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Counsel, having my office situated at Branch Secretariat, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Mumbai do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under : ~ " E - 2 At the outset I say that I have highest regard for this Hon'ble Court and its orders. There was no intention on my part to distort the facte. I had _a.bona fide_ desire to see that the Hon'ble Court's orders are obeyed. I !epeat and reiterate that I had no intention to distort the orders· of this Hoii'ble Court. F 3. I further say that the· contents of the letter dated' l l .2.2005 addressed to Settlement Commissioner was partially not correct. I unconditionally tender my apology for the same. I pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleasP.d to accept the same. Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai this 27th day of March, 2006. - ## G ## Deponent" We have perused the affidavit tendering unconditional apology. In our opinion, the affidavit of apology appears to be honest and genuine. The High Court ought to have accepted the apo1ogy tendered· by the appellant instead H T.C. KAUSHIK _v._ U.0.1. [AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.] 1155 of directing the Revenue Secretary of the Central Government and the C.B.E.C., A New Delhi to take appropriate action as they deem fit against Dr.T.C.Kaushik and Mr.M.G. Rao. Pursuant to the above direction, the Government of India has initiated departmental action against the appellant herein. We are, in this case, concerned ourselves only with Dr.T.C.Kaushik, the appellant herein. B When the matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2006, this Court while ordering notice to the respondents however, directed the respondents, namely, Union of India and others not to proceed with the departmental proceedings. The said order is still in force. As already noticed, the apology tendered by the appellant appears to be honest and genuine and, therefore, in our opinion, C no further departmental action need be taken against the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the observations made by the High Court in paras 11 and 12 of its order alone and allow the appeal to the said extent. However, we say that the appellant should be more careful in future while dealing with the matters like this entrusted to him by the Uni~n of India. D ) N.J. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. No costs. Appeal Partly allowed.