Holding

An honest and genuine unconditional apology by a government counsel precludes the necessity of further departmental action against him.

Summary

Dr. T.C. Kaushik, an Additional Government Counsel, was held by the Bombay High Court to have distorted a court order in a letter to the Revenue Department and was directed to face departmental action. He subsequently filed an affidavit on 27 March 2006 offering an unconditional apology, stating that the distortion was unintentional and that his apology was sincere. The Supreme Court examined whether such an apology, deemed honest and genuine, obviated the need for further disciplinary proceedings. It held that the apology was sufficient and that the High Court should have accepted it instead of ordering action, consequently directing that no further departmental action be taken against Kaushik. The Court set aside the High Court's observations and allowed the appeal in part, while reminding the counsel to exercise greater care in the future.

Issues considered

Whether an unconditional, sincere apology tendered by a government counsel bars further departmental disciplinary action.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the government to initiate departmental proceedings despite the counsel's apology.

Subjects

service lawdepartmental proceedingsgovernment counselapologydisciplinary actioncourt ordersSupreme Court of Indiaappeal

Judgment

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

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 1Ith 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 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. .
B
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
c 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
The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. No costs.
)

N.J. Appeal Partly allowed.