Case Law Details
State Bank of India & Anr. Vs Ajay Kumar Sood (Supreme Court)
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.
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.
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.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
