Holding

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as moot, and the Court held that it could not compel the State Government to suspend officers, while also reprimanding the senior counsel for misconduct.

Summary

The case concerned the suspension of IAS officer E.S. Reddi under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules, which he challenged on the ground of arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, alleging that similarly situated officers were merely transferred. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed a Single Judge’s order quashing the suspension, prompting a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. While hearing the petition, the Court directed the State Government to consider suspending the other officers implicated in the same defalcation case, and later observed that the State Government had indeed suspended them, rendering the petition moot. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and the related applications for recall, emphasizing that it could not compel the Government to exercise its statutory discretion in a particular manner. Additionally, the Court censured the conduct of senior counsel representing T.V. Choudhary for making reckless allegations and advancing arguments with undue vehemence, ordering him to pay costs.

Issues considered

The validity of the selective suspension of E.S. Reddi under Article 14, 1950, in view of the treatment of similarly situated officers.
Whether the Supreme Court can direct a State Government to suspend other officers pending prosecution.
Whether the Special Leave Petition became moot after the other officers were also suspended.
The propriety of a court compelling a statutory authority to exercise its discretion in a specific way.
The appropriate conduct of senior counsel in court proceedings and the consequences of misconduct.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Ruless. Rule 13(1)
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 226
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 120B, s. Section 420
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. Section 6(1)(a)

Subjects

Senior counselAdministrative suspensionArticle 14ArbitrarinessNatural justiceAnti‑corruptionConduct of counselSupreme Court of India

Judgment

A E.S. REDD!
v.
CHIEF SECRETARY.: GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR.

MAY 1, 1987
B [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY. JJ.]

~
'Senior Counsel' designated as such by the Court-Responsibility
to put pleadings into proper and satisfactory fonn-Need for mutual
respect between the Bench and the Bar while advancing arguments.
'-.
c An ollicer involved in a defalcation case who was suspended,
challenged the order of suspension under Art. 14 of the Constitution on
the ground that another ollicer similarly situate had merely been trans-
ferred. The order was quashed by a Single Judge of the High Court,
but, on appeal, his judgment was reversed by the Division Bench. The
matter came up before the Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
D
The counter-allidavit filed by the State Government indicated
that it had initiated action to prosecute two other ollicers involved in the
case. When the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing, the Court "-(
made an interim order directing the counsel to convey to the State
Government the Court's concern at the petitioner alone having been
E placed under suspension and, indicating that if the State Government
did not pass any order placing the other otlicers, who, on a perusal of
the investigation report, appeared to be equally culpable, under suspen-
sion, it may become necessary for the Court to revoke the suspension of
the Special Leave Petitioner at the next hearing. When the matter came
. _, .....
up again, it had to be adjourned by the Court with another interim
F order directing the State Government to pass necessary orders for sos-
pension of all the delinquent ollicers. In anticipation of action by the
State Government, two other ollicers involved in the case filed appllca-
tions praying for recall of the two interim orders aforesaid. However,
the two ollicers in question were also placed under suspension before
the matter tinally came up for hearing.
G
The Court impressed upon counsel appearing for the applicants
who had prayed for recall of the interim orders that the proper course .+ ~

for them was to move the State Government by way of appeal and/or
representation against their suspension. While counsel for one of the
applicants accepted that suggestion and withdrew the application,
H counsel for the other applicant did not do so. The latter applicant had,
146
E.S. REDD! v. CHIEF SECY. GOVT OF A.P. 147

in his application, made certain reckless allegations and cast aspersions A
on the Court. The counsel appearing for him gave the impression that
the application had been settled by him without noticing the offending
averments but went on to advance arguments with undue vehemence
and unwarranted passion.

The Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petitiou as infruc- B
-~- tuous and expressing disapproval of the manner in which arguments
had been advanced on behalf of one of the applicants.

HELD: By virtue of the pre-eminence which 'Senior Counsel'
enjoy In the profession, they not only carry greater responsibilities but
they also act as a model to the junior members of the profession. A C
senior counsel more or less occupies a position akin to a Queen's counsel
·'--<. in England next after the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. It
is an honour and privilege conferred on Advocates of standing and
experience by the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court. They thus
become leading counsel and take precedence on all counsel not having
that rank. A senior counsel though he cannot draw up pleadings of the D
party, can nevertheless be engaged "to settle" I.e. to put the pleadings
into "proper and satisfactory form" and hence a senior counsel settling
pleadings has a more onerous responsibility as otherwise the blame for
improper pleadings will be laid at his doors. [153C·EI

In this case, not only were the arguments advanced with undue E
vehemence and unwarranted passion, reftectlng identification of
interests beyond established conventions but were of degrees not usual
of enlightened senior counsel to adopt. The majesty of law and the
dignity of Courts cannot be maintained unless there is mutual respect
between the Bench and the Bar and the counsel act in run realisation
of their duty to the Court alongside their duty to their clients and F
have the grace to reconcile themselves when their pleas and arguments
do not find acceptance with the Court. Neither rhetoric nor tempestu·
ous arguments can constitute the sine qua non for persuasive
arguments. [153A-C)

Ronde/ v. W, [1966) 3 All ER 657 and Ronde! v. Worsley, G
Y [1967) 3 All ER 993, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Miscellaneous
'Petition No. 25533 of 1986.

IN THE MATIER OF T.V. CHOUDHARY, A MEMBER OF H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 3 S.C.R.

A THE INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (UNDER
SUSPENSION)

WITH

Special Leave Petition No. 14045 of 1985.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.1985 of the Andhra --{ '
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 891of1985.

P.P. Rao, Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, B. Kanta Rao, Ms. Malini
Poduval, B. Parthasarthi, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and B.B. Sawhney for
the Petitioner.
c
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover and Ms. y
Sunila Monigude for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
SEN, J. This is an application made by one T.V. Choudhary, a
Member of the Indian Administrative Service, under suspension, for
recalling the Court's orders dated May 5, 1986 and August 11, 1986
passed in Special Leave Petition No. 14045 of 1985.

E We shall first deal with the Special Leave Petition of E.S. Reddi,
a member of the Indian Administrative ~ervice belonging to Andhra
Pradesh cadre and who worked as the Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing
Director of the Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation. It is directed
against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated
October 18, 1985 reversing the judgment and order of a learned Single
F Judge dated September 2, 1985 and dismissing his petition under Art.
226 of the Constitution. By the writ petition, the petitioner had called
in question the validity of an order of the State Government of Andhra
Pradesh dated February 11, 1985 placing him under suspension under
sub-r. (1) ofr. 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1963. The main grievance of the petitioner
G before the High Court was that the impugned order of suspension was
wholly mala fide, arbitrary and irrational and violative of Art. 14 of
the Constitution as there was no justification for the differential treat-
*'
ment meted out to him while the applicant T. V. Choudhary, also a
member of the Indian Administrative Service, who worked in various
capacities viz. as General Manager, Functional Director, Member,
H Board of Directors and Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director and
E.S. REDD! v. CHIEF SECY, GOVT OF A.P. {SEN, J] 149

was involved in the commission of the alleged irregularities, had A
merely been transferred from the Corporation and posted as Managing
Director, Andhra Pradesh State Textile Development Corporation.
That objection of his was sustained before the learned Single Judge
who by his judgment dated September 2, 1985 quashed the impugned
order of suspension. The Division Bench however by the judgment
under appeal has reversed that judgment and dismissed the writ peti- 8
lion holding that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are
not warranted by the material on record.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 25510/86 is filed by R. Parth-
asarthy, a member of the Indian Administrative Service who was Vice-
Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation for the period c
from March 1979 to October 1979 and was working as the Commis-
sioner of Commercial Taxes, while Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
25533/86 is by T.V. Choudhary, also a member of the Indian
Administrative Service and who was working as the Managing
Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Textile Development Corpora-
tion. These two applications are for recalling the Court's orders dated D
May 5, 1986 and August 11, 1986 on the ground that they prejudicially
affect the applicants. The matter relates to defalcation of a huge
amount of Rs.1.50 crores by certain officers of the State Government
whose services were placed on deputation with the Corporation.
Admittedly, the Anti Cormption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh has regis-
tered a case against these officers for having committed alleged E
offences punishable under s. 120B read withs. 420 of the Indian Penal
Code ands. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cormption Act, 1947 as its
preliminary report revealed a prima facie case against them.

On December 12, 1985 the Court issued notice on the Special
Leave Petition. It appeared from the counter-affidavit filed by the F
State Government that the Anti Cormption Bureau had finalised the
investigation and the Director General had submitted his report dated
March 25, 1986 which was under consideration of the Government. It
also appeared that the State Government of Andhra Pradesh had
addressed letters dated May 2, 1984 for sanction of the Central
Government under s. 6(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 G
for the prosecution of R. Parthasarthy and of the State Government of
Maharashtra for the prosecution of P. Abraham, I.A.S. as he is borne
on the Maharashtra cadre and was on deputation to the Andhra
Pradesh. In compliance with the Court's order, the State Government
placed before us the letter of the State Government dated May 2, 1984
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.

A as also the report of the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Andhra Pradesh dated May 25, 1986. After hearing the parties on May
5, 1986, we made the followiug order:

"In compliance to this Court's order, Shri P. Ram Reddy,
learned counsel for the State Government places before us
B the letter of the State Government dated May 2, 1984 as
also the report of the Director-General, Auti-corruptiou
Bureau, Audhra Pradesh dated March 25, 1986. It appears
from the letter that sanction of the Central Government is
necessary under s. 6(1)(a) of the Preveutiou o[ Corruption
Act, 1947 for the prosecution of R. Parthasarthy, IAS aud
that of the State Government of Maharashtra for the pro-
c secution of P. Abraham we have perused the report of the
Director-General aud it cauuot be said that the charges
levelled against the petitioner are groundless. It is some-
what surprising that the petitioner alone should have beeu
placed nuder suspension by the State Government peudiug
D contemplated departmental enquiry nuder r. 13 of the A.P.
Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
1963 aud uot the other two officers T. V. Choudhary aucl
S.M. Rao Choudhary, the theu Managing Director who it
appears are equally culpable.

E The matter is adjourned till after vacation to enable
the State Government to obtain the requisite sauctiou from
the Central Government for the prosecution of R. Parth-
asarthy aud that of the State Government of Maharashtra
for the prosecution of P. Abraham under s. 6(1)(a) of the
Act. Shri P. Ram Reddy learned counsel for the State
p Government shall iu the meanwhile convey to the State
Government the concern expressed by this Court that the
petitioner alone could have been placed nuder suspension
aud uot the other officers who are alleged to be co-accused.
We are afraid, if the State Government does uot pass auy
order placing the other officers under suspension it may
G become necessary for the l-ourt to revoke the suspension of
the petitioner at the uext hearing."

When the matter came up after vacation ou August 18, 1986 it
had to be adjourned with a direction that the State Government should
iu the meanwhile pass necessary orders for suspension of the deliu-
H queut officers. In anticipation of action by the State Government, the
•

E.S. REDD! '· CHIEF SECY. GOVT OF A.P. [SEN. J[ 151

~ two applicants R. Parthasarthy and T.V. Choudhary moved applica- A
lions on September 2 and September 3, 1986 for recalling the direc-
lions made on May 5, 1986 and August 11, 1986. The applications were
listed for directions on September 5, 1986. On motion being made by
learned counsel appearing for the applicants, it was directed that the
applications be placed for hearing on September 9, 1986. The State
~ ).,-
Government in the meanwhile on September 6, 1986 passed orders for B
suspension of P. Parthasarthy and T.V. Choudhary under r. 13(1) of
• the Rules. We were apprised of this fact when the applications came

~
up for hearing on September 9, 1986 that the State Government had
already placed them under suspension.

In the special leave petition, the only contention of the petitioner
E.S. Reddi was that the action of the State Government in making
c
')< selective suspension suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and
offended against Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as persons like
the applicant T. V. Choudhary who were equally culpable have merely
been transferred while he has been singled out and placed under
suspension under sub-r. (!)of r. 13 of the Rules without any rational D
y basis and that such arbitrary action of the State Government was
tantamount to denial of equal treatment to persons similarly placed. In
view of the subsequent order passed by the State Government on
September 6, 1986 placing other officers including the applicant.T.V.
Choudhary under suspension under r. 13(1) of the Rules pending their
prosecution, the special leave petition has become infmctuous. It is E
accordingly dismissed.
'r That takes us to C.M.P. Nos. 25510/86 and 25533/86 filed by R.
Parthasarthyand T.V. Choudhary respectively. We impressed upon the
--{
learned counsel appearing for them that the proper course for the
applicants was to move the Government by way of appeal and/or F
representation against their suspension and not by these applications
for recalling the Court's orders. After the matter was heard at a con-
siderable length, Smt. Shyamala Pappu, learned counsel appearing for
R. Parthasarthy very properly prayed for leave to withdraw C.M.P.
NO. 25510/86 as the applicant had already made a representation to
). the State Government. She prayed that a direction be made requiring G
the Government to consider the representation at an early date. Dr.
Y.S. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the State Government
fairly agreed that the said representation would be considered by the
Government on merits.

Turning next to C.M.P. No. 25533/86. We must strongly depre- H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A cate the conduct of the applicant T.V. Choudhary, a member of the ~,
Indian Administrative Service and working as Managing Director of
the Andhra Pradesh State Taxtile Development Corporation, to have
made reckless allegations and cast aspersions on the Court. After
denying his complicity, the applicant T. V. Choudhary goes on to
assert:
B
"The Order of this Hon 'ble Court directing the Government
to suspend the other delinquent officers is made without
affording an opportunity to the Applicant and presumably
without considering the relevant provisions of law, case law
and the parameters of judicial power and the necessity to
c observe the principles of natural justice.

It is submitted that the Order of this Hon'ble Court dated yJ
11th August 1986 is illegal, insofar as it directed the
Government to suspend the applicant and others, in view
of the fact that the Government has exercised its discretion
D and transferred the applicant taking into consideration the
recommendation of the Anti-corruption Bureau. It is well
settled that a Court of law cannot compel a statutory
authority to exercise its statutory discretion in a particular
manner. The legislative will in conferring discretion in an
essentially administrative function cannot be interfered
E with by Courts."

To say the least, the averments are highly objectionable. It was ---.,,
expected that the applicant. who is a very senior member of the
Indian Administrative Service, should have shown greater responsibi-
lity before making such unfounded allegations and uncalled for asper-
F sions. On a motion being made on September 5, 1986 by Shri P .P.
Rao, learned counsel for the applicant, it was directed that the applica-
tion shall be listed for hearing on September 9, 1986. At the same
time, we drew the attention of the learned counsel to the improper and
objectionable averments made by the applicant. We were given the
impression that the application had been settled by the learned counsel
G without noticing the offending averments.

We wish we could have rested content with concluding the judg-
ment with the operative portion of our conclusions on the merits of the
case but we find with a sense of anguish and heaviness of heart that we
have to express our disapproval of the manner in which the arguments
H were advanced before us on behalf of the applicant T. V. Choudhary.
E.S. REDD! r. CHIEF SECY, GOVT OF A.P. [SEN, JI 153

~ Not only were the arguments advanced with undue vehemence and A
unwarranted passion, reflecting indentification of interest beyond es-
tablished conventions but were of degrees not usual of enlightened
senior counsel to adopt. The majesty of law and the dignity of courts
cannot be maintained unless there is mutual respect between the
Bench and the Bar and the counsel act in full realisation of their duty
to the Court alongside their duty to their clients and have the grace to B
reconcile themselves when their pleas and arguments do not find
acceptance with the Court. It is needless for us to say that neither
rhetoric nor tempestuous arguments can contsitute the sine qua non
for persuasive arguments.

By virtue of the pre-eminence which senior counsel enjoy in the
profession, they not only carry greater responsibili•ies but they also act
c
as a model to the junior members of the profession. A senior counsel
more or less occupied a position akin to a Queen's counsel in England
next after the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. It is an
honour and privilege conferred on advocates of standing and experi-
ence by the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court. They thus D
become leading counsel and take precedence on all counsel not having
Y' that rank. A senior counsel though he cannot draw up pleadings of the
party, can nevertheless be engaged "to settle" i.e. to put the pleadings
into "proper and satisfactory form" and hence a senior counsel settling
pleadings has a more onerous responsibility as otherwise the blame for
improper pleadings will be laid at his doors. E
~

Lord Reid in Ronde! v. Worsley, [1967] 3 All ER 993 has sue-
r cinctly set out the conflicting nature of the duties a counsel has to
perform in his own inimitable manner as follows:-
- .. "Every counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise F
every issue, advance every argument, and ask every ques-
tion, however distasteful, which he thinks will help ·his
client's case. As an officer of the court concerned in the
administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the
court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public,
which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client's G
' j..
wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal in-
terests. Counsel must not mislead the court, he must not
lend himself to casting aspersions on the other party or
witness~s for which there is no sufficient basis in the infor-
mation in his possession, he must not withhold authorities
or documents which may tell against his clients but which H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A the law or the standards of his profession require him to
produce. By so acting he may well incur the displeasure or
worse of his client so that if the case is lost, his client would
or might seek legal redress if that were open to him."

Again as Lord Denning, M.R. in Randel v. W, [1966] 3 ALL ER
B
657 would say 'he (the counsel) has time and again to choose between
his duty to his client and his duty to the Court. This is a conflict often
difficult to resolve; and he should not be under pressure to decide it
wrongly. When a barrister or an advocate puts his first duty to the
Court, he has nothing to fear'. In the words of Lord Denning:

c "It is a mistake to suppose that he is the mouthpiece of his
client to say what he wants: ....... He must disregard the
most specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with
his duty to the court. The code which requires a barrister to
do all this is not a code of law. It is a code of honour. If he
breaks it, he is offending against the rules of the profession
D and is subject to its discipline."

We are constrained to give expression to our views with a feeling ""(
of remorse to remind the counsel of that sense of detachment and
non-identification they are expected to maintain with the causes
espoused by them and not with a view to belittle the profession or cast
E aspersions on counsel.

After bestowing our dispassionate consideration of the matter
we found ourselves left with no other alternative but to dismiss the
application made by T.V. Choudhary which was clearly misconceived
and we direct the applicant to pay Rs.5,000 as costs to the State
F Government in view of the disapprobation his case and conduct has
warrar:ted.

H.L.C. Petitions dismissed.