52. State Bank of India v.

Ajay Kumar Sood

Civil Appeal No. 5305 of 2022

Date of Decision: 16th August, 2022

Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

JUDGEMENT
Per Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J,
1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 27 November 2020 of a Division

Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court affirmed the
order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal1 dated 09 July 2019.

3. In 2013, the appellant issued a charge sheet to the respondent in a disciplinary

enquiry on a charge of gross misconduct. The respondent was charged with (i)
gross misconduct including disrupting the functioning of the branch of the bank
and misbehavior with the branch manager; (ii) use of abusive language and
threatening the branch manager; (iii) organizing demonstrations without prior
notice; (iv) disrupting smooth functioning by preventing other employees from
carrying out their functions; (v) deliberately flouting systems and procedures
with the intention to undermine the branch manager‟s authority and increasing
the operational risk of the branch; (vi) unauthorized absence from duty; (vii)
disobedience of office orders; (viii) proceeding on medical leave without
providing relevant medical certificates; and (ix) issuance of cheques from a
bank account which did not have sufficient balance. The enquiry officer
submitted an enquiry report dated 19 October 2013 finding the respondent
guilty of all the charges.

4. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent on 22

October 2013 to explain why he should not be dismissed from service in view
of the findings of the enquiry officer. The respondent sought an extension of 15
days. The disciplinary authority noted that it had granted an extension of 5 days
but not having received any response, it imposed the penalty of dismissal from
service by its order dated 06 November 2013. The appellate authority of the
bank rejected the respondent‟s appeal on 03 January 2014.

1 “CGIT”.
5. The respondent raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act
1947 to challenge his termination before the CGIT. The enquiry proceedings
and report were held to be vitiated as they were found to be in violation of the
principles of natural justice by the Tribunal‟s order dated 25 September 2018.
However, the bank was allowed to lead evidence to justify the charges against
the respondent.

6. Based on the evidence led before the Tribunal on the charge of misconduct, the
CGIT by its order dated 09 July 2019 came to the conclusion that the first
charge against the respondent was proved. The CGIT found the penalty of
dismissal to be harsh and disproportionate and modified the punishment to
compulsory retirement.

7. The appellant as well as the respondent instituted writ petitions before the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh to challenge the order of the CGIT. The High Court
affirmed the order of the CGIT. The High Court also directed the Tribunal to
compute the consequential benefits conferred upon the respondent. The High
Court directed the Tribunal to pass an order in accordance with Section 10(9)
and Section 10(10) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

8. On 12 March 2021, this Court issued notice against the impugned judgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court while entertaining the Special Leave
Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. This court observed -

[Quote Begins] “3. Prima facie, in our view, a serious act of misconduct
stands established from the evidentiary findings contained in paragraphs
16 and 17 of the award of the CGIT (Annexure P-9). We are inclined to
issue notice for this reason and for an additional reason as well.

4. The reasons set out in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court dated 27 November 2020 dismissing the petition filed by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution, span over eighteen
pages but are incomprehensible. For this purpose, it is necessary to
extract paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6 of the judgment of the High Court, which
read as follows:

[Inner Quote Begins] “3. All the afore infirmities noticed in the
impugned award, to, occur, in, Annexure P-18, remain neither
contested nor any endeavor, is made by the learned counsel,
appearing for the employer to scuttle all the legal effects thereof.
Consequently, the afore apposite noticed infirmities, as, echoed
in the impugned award, to occur in Annexure P-18, and,
appertaining, to, affirmative conclusion(s), being made qua the
workman, vis-à-vis, the apposite thereto charges drawn against
him, do, necessarily acquire overwhelming legal weight, and, also
enjoin theirs being revered.
 4. Be that as it may, since the impugned award, is made, in
pursuance to a petition filed, before the learned Tribunal, by the
Workman, under Section 2-A, of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947,
and, when after affording, the, fullest adequate opportunities, to
the contesting litigants, to adduce their respective evidence(s), on
the issues, falling for consideration, the learned Tribunal
proceeded to make the impugned award, (i) thereupon the effect,
if any, or the legal effect, of, Annexure P-18, inasmuch as, it
containing evidence, in support of the conclusion(s), borne
therein, does, emphatically, become(s) subsumed, within the
canvas, and, contours, of, the evidence adduced, respectively, by
the workman, and, by the employer, before the learned Tribunal,
(ii) unless evidence emerged through the witnesses', who testified
before the learned Tribunal, and, upon theirs being confronted
with their statement(s), previously made before the Inquiry
Officer, and, its making unearthing(s), vis-à-vis, hence no
credibility, being assigned, vis-à-vis, theirs respective
testification(s), made before the learned Tribunal. However, a
perusal, of, evidence, adduced before the learned Tribunal, both
by the Workman, and, the employer, unveils, (iii) that the afore
evidence, became testified, by all the witnesses concerned,
rather with the fullest opportunity, being afforded to the counsel,
for the workman, and, to the counsel for the employer, (iv) and,
also unveils that the counsel, for, the employer, rather omitting to,
during the process, of, his conducting their cross-examination,
hence confront them, with their previous statement, recorded
before the Inquiry Officer, for therethrough(s), his obviously
attempting to, hence impeach their respective credibility(ies). In
summa, hence the evidence adduced before the Tribunal
concerned, alone enjoins its, if deemed fit, being appraised by this
Court.

5. The learned Tribunal, had, upon consideration, of evidence

adduced, vis-à-vis, charges No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, hence
concluded, qua theirs, not therethrough, becoming proven, rather
it made a conclusion, vis-à-vis, their being lack, of, cogent
evidence, or their being want, of, adduction, of, cogent evidence,
qua therewith, by the employer, and, obviously, returned
thereon(s) finding(s), adversarial, to the employer. Consequently,
hence the appraisal, of, evidence, adduced by the
department/employer, vis-à-vis, the afore charges, does not,
merit any interference, as reading(s) thereof, obviously, unfold
qua the appraisal, of, evidence, adduced, vis-à-vis, the afore
drawn charges, hence by the learned Tribunal, hence not,
suffering from any gross mis-appraisal thereof, nor from any stain,
 of, non-appraisal, of, germane evidence, hence adduced qua
therewith, by the department/employer.

6. The ire res-controversia, erupting interse the litigants, appertains,

to findings, adversarial, to the workman, becoming returned upon
charge No. 1. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
workman, contends with much vigor, before this Court, that since
the CCTV footage, does not vividly pronounce, qua the workman,
tearing the apposite letter, thereupon findings, adversarial, to the
workman, were not amenable, to be returned upon charge No.
1(supra). However, the afore made submission, before this Court,
by the learned counsel for the workman, is, made without his
bearing in mind, the further facet, vis-à- vis, the workman, in his
cross-examination, making articulation(s), coined in the
phraseology, "No Branch Manager has dared to issue me letter
prior to this". In addition, with the Workman, despite his coming
into possession, of, the apposite letter, issued to him, by the
Branch Manger, especially when no evidence, contra therewith,
became adduced, by him, hence became enjoined, to dispel the
factum, of, his not tearing it, rather ensure its production, before
the Officer concerned. However, he failed to adduce/produce the
afore letter before the Officer concerned, thereupon, dehors the
CCTV footage, not graphically displaying his tearing the apposite
letter, rather not cementing or filliping any conclusion, vis- à-vis,
perse therefrom, any exculpatory finding, becoming amenable to
be returned upon charge No. 1.” [End of Inner Quote]

5. We are constrained to observe that the language in the judgment of the

High Court is incomprehensible. Judgments are intended to convey the
reasoning and process of thought which leads to the final conclusion of
the adjudicating forum. The purpose of writing a judgment is to
communicate the basis of the decision not only to the members of the
Bar, who appear in the case and to others to whom it serves as a
precedent but above all, to provide meaning to citizens who approach
courts for pursuing their remedies under the law. Such orders of the High
Court as in the present case do dis-service to the cause of ensuring
accessible and understandable justice to citizens.

6. Since the High Court has affirmed the award of the CGIT, we have been
able to arrive at an understanding of the basic facts from the order which
was challenged before the High Court. From the record of the Court,
more particularly the award of the CGIT, it emerges that though a serious
charge of misconduct was held to be established against the respondent,
it has been interfered with and the High Court has dismissed the petition
under Article 226.” [End of Quote]
 9. Following the return of notice, we have heard Mr Sanjay Kapur, counsel for the
appellant and Mr Colin Gonsalves, senior counsel for the respondent.

10. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh is
incomprehensible. This Court in appeal found it difficult to navigate through the
maze of incomprehensible language in the decision of the High Court. A litigant
for whom the judgment is primarily meant would be placed in an even more
difficult position. Untrained in the law, the litigant is confronted with language
which is not heard, written or spoken in contemporary expression. Language of
the kind in a judgment defeats the purpose of judicial writing. Judgment writing
of the genre before us in appeal detracts from the efficacy of the judicial
process. The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader
behind the veneer of complex language. The judge must write to provide an
easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for
decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by
judges. Judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court also serve as
precedents to guide future benches. A judgment must make sense to those
whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of the case. While a
judgment is read by those as well who have training in the law, they do not
represent the entire universe of discourse. Confidence in the judicial process is
predicated on the trust which its written word generates. If the meaning of the
written word is lost in language, the ability of the adjudicator to retain the trust
of the reader is severely eroded.

11. We are constrained to remit the proceedings back to the High Court for
consideration afresh. The judgment of the High Court is simply
incomprehensible leaving this Court with no option than to remand the
proceedings. The High Court must appreciate the delay and expense
occasioned as a consequence and must make an effort to record reasons which
are understood by all stake-holders.

12. Earlier too, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Aluminium and

Conductors,2 Sarla Sood v. Pawan Kumar Sharma3, this Court had to
remand the proceedings arising out of similar judgments of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, so that orders could be passed afresh in language which is
capable of being understood. In Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh4
as well, a two Judge Bench of this Court, was faced with an order of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad which made it difficult to discern between the
submissions of counsel and the reasons of the court. Laying emphasis on the
purpose of a judgment, this Court elaborated on what should be the content of
a judgment. The court observed that:

2 Civil Appeal No. 5032 of 2022, Supreme Court of India.

3 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7768-7769 of 2017, Supreme Court of India.
4 (2021) SCC OnLine SC 672.
 [Quote Begins] 33. […] “Judgment” means a judicial opinion which tells
the story of the case; what the case is about; how the court is
resolving the case and why. “Judgment” is defined as any decision given
by a court on a question or questions or issue between the parties to a
proceeding properly before court. It is also defined as the decision or the
sentence of a court in a legal proceeding along with the reasoning of a
judge which leads him to his decision. The term “judgment” is loosely
used as judicial opinion or decision. Roslyn Atkinson, J., Supreme Court
of Queensland, in her speech once stated that there are four purposes
for any judgment that is written:
i. to spell out judges own thoughts;
ii. to explain your decision to the parties;
iii. to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and
iv. to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider

34. It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be

reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. [….] What the court
says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court decides.

35. Every judgment contains four basic elements and they are (i) statement
of material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or questions, (iii) deliberation
to reach at decision and (iv) the ratio or conclusive decision. A judgment
should be coherent, systematic and logically organised. It should
enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the
basis of legal principles. It is pertinent to examine the important
elements in a judgment in order to fully understand the art of reading a
judgment. In the Path of Law, Holmes J. has stressed the insentient
factors that persuade a judge. A judgment has to formulate findings of
fact, it has to decide what the relevant principles of law are, and it has to
apply those legal principles to the facts. The important elements of a
judgment are:
i. Caption
ii. Case number and citation
iii. Facts
iv. Issues
v. Summary of arguments by both the parties
vi. Application of law
vii. Final conclusive verdict

36. The judgment replicates the individuality of the judge and therefore it is
indispensable that it should be written with care and caution. The
reasoning in the judgment should be intelligible and logical. Clarity
and precision should be the goal. All conclusions should be
supported by reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions
should be precise and specific. Writing judgments is an art, though
it involves skillful application of law and logic. We are conscious of
 the fact that the judges may be overburdened with the pending cases
and the arrears, but at the same time, quality can never be sacrificed for
quantity. Unless judgment is not in a precise manner, it would not have
a sweeping impact. There are some judgments that eventually get
overruled because of lack of clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is
written, it should have clarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf
of the rival parties; discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning
and thereafter the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter the
operative portion of the order. There must be a clarity on the final relief
granted. A party to the litigation must know what actually he has got by
way of final relief. The aforesaid aspects are to be borne in mind while
writing the judgment, which would reduce the burden of the appellate
court too. We have come across many judgments which lack clarity on
facts, reasoning and the findings and many a times it is very difficult to
appreciate what the learned judge wants to convey through the judgment
and because of that, matters are required to be remanded for fresh
consideration. Therefore, it is desirable that the judgment should have a
clarity, both on facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasonings
and the ultimate relief granted. (emphasis supplied) [End of Quote]

13. Amidst an overburdened judicial docket, a view is sometimes voiced that parties
are concerned with the outcome and little else. This view proceeds on the basis
that parties value the outcome and not the reasoning which constitutes the
foundation. This view undervalues the importance of the judicial function and of
the reasons which are critical to it. The work of a judge cannot be reduced to a
statistic about the disposal of a case. Every judgment is an incremental step
towards consolidation and change. In adhering to precedent, the judgment
reflects a commitment to protecting legal principle. This imparts certainty to the
law. Each judgment is hence a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental
precepts on which a legal order is based. But in incremental steps a judgment
addresses the need to evolve and to transform by addressing critical issues
which confront human existence. Courts are as much engaged in the slow yet
not so silent process of bringing about a social transformation. How good or
deficient they are in that quest is tested by the quality of the reasons as much
as by the manner in which the judicial process is structured.

14. Lord Burrows of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in his speech at the
Annual Conference of Judges of the Superior Courts in Ireland stressed upon
the importance of clarity, coherence and conciseness in judgment writing.5 Lord
Burrows also noted the importance of the judgment being written in a manner
that it is accessible to all considering its wide and varied potential audience. He
noted:6

5 Lord Burrows, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Judgment-Writing: A Personal
Perspective, Annual Conference of Judges of the Superior Courts in Ireland, 20 May 2021.
6 Ibid.
 [Quote Begins] “For senior judges, one‟s target audience must include
the parties themselves, the legal advisers to those parties, other judges,
other practising lawyers, academic lawyers and students, and last but by
no means least the public at large.” [End of Quote]
Lord Burrows also reiterates the view of Lord Bingham, that a judgment which
is unclear or not concise and therefore inaccessible may contradict the rule of
law:7
[Quote Begins] (T)here is the view that a judgment that is unclear or not
concise and therefore inaccessible may contradict the rule of law. The
great Lord Bingham – a master of judgment-writing if ever there was one
– suggested this in his book, The Rule of Law. Having laid down as his
first concretised element of the rule of law that the law must be
accessible” [End of Quote] he went on as follows:
[Quote Begins] “The judges are quite ready to criticise the obscurity and
complexity of legislation. But those who live in glass houses are ill-
advised to throw stones. The length, elaboration and prolixity of some
common law judgments… can in themselves have the effect of making
the law to some extent inaccessible.” [End of Quote]

15. In a piece of academic writing, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez of the Supreme

Court of Israel distinguished between academic writing and judgment writing.
While alluding to the importance of judgments being written in an accessible
manner,8 Justice Daphne Barak-Erez notes:

[Quote Begins] “For judges, the professional community is only one of

their several audiences. Judges write first and foremost for the parties
appearing before them, for the state's agents who are in charge of
enforcement, and for the public. Although judgments are professional
legal documents, and sometimes involve complex technical and legal
analyses, they should also be accessible, or at least explicable, to
people who are not professionals, as they define the law for a larger
community.” [End of Quote]

16. A judgment culminates in a conclusion. But its content represents the basis
for the conclusion. A judgment is hence a manifestation of reason. The reasons
provide the basis of the view which the decision maker has espoused, of the
balances which have been drawn. That is why reasons are crucial to the
legitimacy of a judge's work. They provide an insight into judicial analysis,
explaining to the reader why what is written has been written. The reasons, as
much as the final conclusion, are open to scrutiny. A judgment is written
primarily for the parties in a forensic contest. The scrutiny is first and foremost

7Ibid.
8 Justice Daphne Barak-Erez, Writing Law: Reflections on Judicial Decisions and Academic
Scholarship, (2015) 41- 1 QUEEN'S LAW JOURNAL 255.
 by the person for whom the decision is meant - the conflicting parties before the
court. At a secondary level, reasons furnish the basis for challenging a judicial
outcome in a higher forum. The validity of the decision is tested by the
underlying content and reasons. But there is more. Equally significant is the fact
that a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes
taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives. Hence, a
judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond the
immediate contest in a courtroom. Citizens, researchers and journalists
continuously evaluate the work of courts as public institutions committed to
governance under law. Judgment writing is hence a critical instrument in
fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.

17. Judgment writing is a layered exercise. In one layer, a judgment addresses the
concerns and arguments of parties to a forensic contest. In another layer, a
judgment addresses stake-holders beyond the conflict. It speaks to those in
society who are impacted by the discourse. In the layered formulation of
analysis, a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Whether or not
the writer of a judgment envisions it, the written product remains for the future,
representing another incremental step in societal dialogue. If a judgment does
not measure up, it can be critiqued and criticized. Behind the layers of reason
is the vision of the adjudicator over the values which a just society must embody
and defend. In a constitutional framework, these values have to be grounded in
the Constitution. The reasons which a judge furnishes provides a window - an
insight - into the work of the court in espousing these values as an integral
element of the judicial function.

18. Many judgments do decide complex questions of law and of fact. Brevity is an
unwitting victim of an overburdened judiciary. It is also becoming a victim of the
cut- copy-paste convenience afforded by software developers. This Court has
been providing headings and sub-headings to assist the reader in providing a
structured sequence. Introduced and popularized in judgment writing by Lord
Denning, this development has been replicated across jurisdictions.9

19. Lord Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court of the United
Kingdom, discussed in the course of a lecture10 the importance of clearly written
judgments:

[Quote Begins] A second small change worth considering would be for

more judges to give better guidance to the structure and contents of their
longer Judgments. Some judges already provide a clear framework,
sometimes with a table of contents, a roadmap, at the beginning, and
often with appropriate headings, signposts, throughout the Judgment.
Kimble‟s study confirms that this is not just a good discipline but it is

9Supra (Lord Burrows).

10Lord Neuberger, No Judgment – No Justice, First Annual British and Irish Legal Information Institute
(BAILII) Lecture (20 November 2012).
 what the legal professional readers want, and, if it is what lawyers want,
it is a fortiori what non- lawyers will want. A clear structure aids
accessibility.” [End of Quote]
20. It is also useful for all judgments to carry paragraph numbers as it allows for
ease of reference and enhances the structure, improving the readability and
accessibility of the judgments. A Table of Contents in a longer version assists
access to the reader.
21. On the note of accessibility, the importance of making judgments accessible to
persons from all sections of society, especially persons with disability needs
emphasis. All judicial institutions must ensure that the judgments and orders
being published by them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they
end up making the documents inaccessible for persons with visual disability
who use screen readers to access them. On the same note, courts and tribunals
must also ensure that the version of the judgments and orders uploaded is
accessible and signed using digital signatures. They should not be scanned
versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is
a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The
practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make
documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens.
22. In terms of structuring judgments, it would be beneficial for courts to structure
them in a manner such that the „Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion‟ are
easily identifiable. The well-renowned “IRAC‟ method generally followed for
analyzing cases and structuring submissions can also benefit judgments when
it is complemented by recording the facts and submissions.
23. The “Issue‟ refers to the question of law that the court is deciding. A court may
be dealing with multiple issues in the same judgment. Identifying these issues
clearly helps structure the judgment and provides clarity for the reader on the
specific issue of law being decided in a particular segment of a judgment. The
„Rule‟ refers to the portion of the judgment which distils the submissions of
counsel on the applicable law and doctrine for the issue identified. This rule is
applied to the facts of the case in which the issue has arisen. The analysis
recording the reasoning of a court forms the “Application‟ section.
24. Finally, it is always useful for a court to summarize and lay out the „Conclusion‟
on the basis of its determination of the application of the rule to the issue along
with the decision vis-à-vis the specific facts. This allows stakeholders,
especially members of the bar as well as judges relying upon the case in the
future, to concisely understand the holding of the case.
25. Justice M.M. Corbett, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South
Africa, in a lecture at an orientation course for new judges,11 recommended a

11Justice M.M. Corbett, Writing a Judgment - Address at the First Orientation Course for New Judges,
(1998) 115 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW JOURNAL 116.
 similar structure which facilitates orderliness and produces a logical, flowing
judgment: [List Begins]
a. An introductory section;
b. Setting out of the facts:
c. The law and the issues;
d. Applying the law to the facts;
e. Determining the relief (including order for costs); and
f. Finally, the order of the Court. [End of List]
26. Although it is unfortunate that we have to set aside the impugned judgment and
direct its remand due to its incoherence, we have taken the opportunity to lay
out the above discussion on judgment writing. Incoherent judgments have a
serious impact upon the dignity of our institutions.

27. While we have laid down some broad guidelines, individual judges can indeed
have different ways of writing judgments and continue to have variations in their
styles of expression. The expression of a judge is an unfolding of the recesses
of the mind. However, while recesses of the mind may be inscrutable, the
reasoning in judgment cannot be. While judges may have their own style of
judgment writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across these styles. This
has also been captured by Justice Corbett,12 in the following extract:

[Quote Begins] “For lucidity should be the prime aim of any judgment-
writer. At the same time, certain aspects of style have a bearing on
lucidity. In this connection, my advice (for what it is worth) is to keep
your language and your sentence construction simple. Write in
short sentences and do not try to pack too many ideas into a single
sentence. Particularly in setting out facts, try to maintain a simple,
straightforward flow to your narrative. Try to avoid the repetition of
words or phrases and observe the normal rules of grammar. A well-
known exponent of simple language and the simple sentence was Lord
Denning.” (emphasis supplied) [End of Quote]

28. Echoing a similar sentiment, Justice Michael Kirby, a distinguished former judge
of the High Court of Australia notes:13

[Quote Begins] “Brevity, simplicity and clarity. These are the hallmarks of
good judgment writing. But the greatest of these is clarity.” [End of
Quote]

12 Ibid.
29. In view of the incomprehensibility of the impugned judgment, we allow the
appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated
27 November 2020 in CWPs No 3597 of 2020 along with 4844 of 2020.

30. CWPs No 3597 of 2020 along with 4844 of 2020 are restored to the file of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh for being considered afresh. In paragraphs 3
and 6 of the earlier order of this Court dated 12 March 2021, certain
observations are contained on the merits of the award of the CGIT and on the
finding of misconduct which was arrived at against the respondent in the
disciplinary proceedings. Since the proceedings are being remitted back to the
High Court, it is clarified on the request of counsel for the respondent, that all
the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.

31. Considering that the writ petitions were filed in 2020 and the termination of
service goes back to the year 2013, we would request the High Court to
expedite the disposal of the writ petitions.

32. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.