 Good evening friends. And as we had said that we will continue with the service law series and to understand that service law, we thought they couldn't be a better person who can make things simple, subtle and understandable. And the only one voice which came across was that you can dispense anything but you can't dispense with the knowledge sharing what Mr. P. S. Rajagopal shares. And as we say that we also held an inquiry as to there could be any other person who can share the knowledge in the right way and the right manner. We ultimately saw that everyone pinpointed that Mr. P. S. Rajagopal is the right person who can make you understand that which are the ways where you can dispense with within query. But here is a case where you can even dispense with a person and with and without holding inquiry but ultimately the net result would be that it should be only P. S. Rajagopal who can make you understand the service law in the best service manner it could be. And beyond law series, along with Revikulam and Associates are too happy that Mr. Rajagopal despite his busy schedule has always been willing to share his knowledge with us. And that's the they say that the difference between the ordinary and an extraordinary person is that little extra that extra effort which Mr. P. S. Rajagopal puts in to share his knowledge is always fascinating. I will ask Mr. Revikulam to just give a brief intro. Being a weekend everybody wants to listen to Mr. Rajagopal and then they want to dispense with the legal system and go for the party etc. Over to you Revikulam. Good evening sir. Good evening one and all. Mr. Vikas Chakrat has rightly mentioned that the senior advocate who is with us is an extraordinary, eminent person. No doubt about it. I would I would endorse it completely and we are such a privileged crowd to be with the senior advocate on this evening. Not wasting much time over to you sir. Once again on behalf of beyond law CLC and on my personal behalf a very warm welcome to you sir and over to you. Good evening friends. Vikas and Revikulam and my dear friends. The question of dispensing with the empire under the constitutional mandate as also under the contract would be a concept that would be better explained if you first understand why the empire is necessary at all. Because only if empire is necessary the question of dispensing with it and circumstances and which it can be dispensed with these questions would arise. Let me preface saying that the concept of dispensing with empire is something that we find in article 311 of the constitution. It is also the provision in the constitution which gives a right to the civil servant to have an empire conducted in law in accordance with law before his services are dispensed with it. Then the first concept we have to understand is whether the provisions of article 311 or the principles underlying article 311. He is applicable only to civil servants that is persons who are servants of the state directly or to anyone who is not a civil servant also but happens to be a servant of an instrumentality of the state. I cannot help recalling the two judgments of the Supreme Court which gave his semblance of right similar to the one envisaged under article 311 to the employees of the instrumentalities of state also. First was constitution bench in Sukhdev Singh where the Supreme Court considered the staff regulations made by the LIC, ONGC and one another public sector organization a statutory body and held that these regulations which are made they equally bind the corporations which are made them. Subsequently, it fell to Lord Justice Chinaparedhi whom I would consider as Doen who extended the constitutional rights to those who were till then not covered by it by saying in UP Warehouse Incorporation scales that he does not see any reason why. The principles underlying article 311 which are nothing but what is already contained in articles 14, 16, 19, 1G and 21 to servants of the state corporations also. There is a direct statement made by the Supreme Court which put at rest all doubts whether the principles underlying article 311 are applicable to servants of the instrumentalities of the state also. Thereafter we have made a long march and as of today the settled position in law is that though article 311 by itself is not applicable to the employees of instrumentalities of the state. Nonetheless principles underlying them would definitely be applicable to all public servants or to put it precisely all servants of statutory corporations and instrumentalities of the state. First part of article 311 it lays down no person who is a member of a civil service of the union or an all India service or a civil servant of a state or holds a civil post under the union or a state shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that which he appointed. This clause all that it says is a dismissal or removal from service can occur only from the hands of authority which appointed that civil servant or the concept of appointing another. We can say what we know very well today that only appointing authority can dismiss or removal or compulsorily retire a government servant. This part of 311 that is clause 1 of 311 is not very relevant for today's discussion because we will be dealing with clause 2 and the exceptions there to provided by the provisors there. And let me clarify at the threshold clause 1 of article 311 will not be applicable to persons who are the employees of the instrumentalities of state. That is how this concept we come across and those of you who are dealing with criminal law you would be well aware of this principle that is under provision of corruption act sanctioned to prosecute need be given by authority competent to remove the public servant from office. In interpreting that protection section 19 of the prevention of corruption, courts have requitedly held if he is a civil servant appointing authority or an authority to which it is subordinate can only give sanction. But when it comes to servants of the instrumentalities of the state where the concept of clause 1 of article 311 does not apply, it need not be the appointing authority but it should be the authority who is competent to remove or dismiss employment servants. It is clause 2 of article 311 which lays down the legal principle that no such person, such person means no civil member of a civil service of the union or of the all India service or a civil service of the state or who holds a civil post. No such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except of an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charge against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Those charges the civil servant should have an opportunity not as an empty formality but a reasonable opportunity. What is reasonable opportunity is not the subject matter of the presented topic but it would be necessary to know what is reasonable opportunity at least in a nutshell. What is the reasonable opportunity is the employee must be told of charges against him then he must have of the employer should lead evidence in support of the charges. The civil servant who is facing the charges he must be given an opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence produced by the employee of state in support of the charges. And lastly in addition to testing the veracity of the evidence produced in support of the charges the civil servant should have an opportunity to lead evidence in his defense. This is somewhat substance of reasonable opportunity. Subsequently certain judiciary evolved concepts also are there that is due to disclose, due to give reasons they are not relevant for the present purpose. Every public sector undertaken or every instrumental state has framed their own regulations of rules. Even in respect of central civil services I think there is rule 11, rule 19 that is rule 14 in the matter of conduct of inquiry. And rule 19 has an exception provided there too. Then every state civil service also there are similar provisions. Then if any inquiry is not held in accordance with those rules which more or less cover substantively or to put it firmly. Which captures the soul of article 311 too. If an inquiry is not held in accordance with those rules then the penalty cannot be sustained. Then there are two provisos which are relevant for present purpose. The three provisos, the two provisos are part of second proviso clauses AB and C. Now under three circumstances second proviso would be attracted whereby the inquiry can be dismissed. First is clause A of proviso 2 that is where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction in a criminal case. That is the first circumstance under which an inquiry can be dispensed. The rationale behind this proviso is not difficult to understand. So suppose a government employee or any public servant he has faced a criminal prosecution may be under provision of corruption or even may be under provisions of IPC or any other penal law. If the employer wants to proceed on the basis of conduct which has led to his conviction that is there must be a conviction though your service rules do not contemplate the provisions of IPC as such. There are dos and don'ts in the service rules which would characterize those conducts as misconducts. For example, let us take a case of a civil servant being caught red handed while accepting a bribe. It would be misconduct under rule 3 of the conduct rules all over the country and all over in most of these service rules. Let us say a person is practicing bygony. Now that is also a misconduct under the conduct rules. Then there may be, it may not be stricto sense of falling under any other conduct, any other clauses but it may be a conduct which could be said to be a conduct unbecoming of a civil servant or a conduct unbecoming of a public servant. Then where a person has a massive wealth which is an offence they disperse right to his known sources of income. It is not difficult to say that all these are misconducts. Therefore, when a person is to be acted upon departmentally on the basis of a conduct which has led to the, led to his conviction, then enquiry is not necessary. It can be dispensed, it is dispensed with without anything more. Why this? After all the department is enquired. The standard of proof is proof according to the preponderance of property. But in the criminal case, proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a case where public servant is convicted on the test of preponder the proof beyond reasonable doubt, it would be preposterous to insist that SS in criminal court has been convicted but still an enquiry has to be held by the employer. Because it would be a luxury and if I may say so, it would be a Victorian luxury which would involve not only extents and waste of public time but ultimately it would be a wasteful expenditure of both time and money. That apart, in a society governed by rule of law, judgments rendered by competent courts have to be respected and have to be accepted. On these principles, the first clause that is sub clause A of article 311-2 nobody can question or doubt the efficacy of. No, there are two more clauses, clause B and C, clauses B and C, which could be debated. They are debatable. Clause B is where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded in writing it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. That is, the second circumstance in which enquiry can be distinguished with is, it is not practicably reasonable to hold an enquiry. This and clause C, both of them were challenged and Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel upheld both these clauses and it also upheld 42nd amendment to the constitution which dispensed with right to be heard on propositiveness. Now, coming to clause B, that is, where the authority competent to dismiss comes to a conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold them. This arises in as simple a case as unauthorized evidence. Of course, not too long ago, we had a situation particularly in department of health services in all the states. Doctors who simply remain absent, they go to Middle East or any other more profitable country where they get better salary, they will never return to the work. Notices are issued to them, recalling them, saying that it is necessary for the interest of work, you have to come back. Those notices can never be served on that pair. Doctor, because he will not be in India, we will be sending him notices in India. Then we publish notices in the newspaper in such a situation. It would be luxurious exuberance to have an expert in. Then there may be a case where a civil servant may be simply absconding. These are cases which do not, which make the inquiry impractical. Then there could be other cases also. For example, let us take a case where we initiate the inquiry or the employer initiates the inquiry. The inquiry is halfway through. Then it is found that witnesses have been purchased in such an event. Holding an inquiry would be futile. Then there may be cases where, for example, take the case of a large scale nationwide strike where action is to be taken. Again, it is strike leaders. There are definite materials available to the government. Assists the activities of particular, what should I say, gang leaders, though it is a very bad phrase, a coterie who are propping up this type of activities. And it may be quite possible to hold the inquiry also. But then immediate action is required to prevent greater damage to public interest. Then there may be cases and cases where the employer comes to know, let us say in a particular case, after issuing up the charge sheet, he comes to know that the witnesses are being threatened with their consequences. There is a threat addressed to them that, look, if you come and depose against me in the inquiry, I will kill you. Or I will get you knocked out of the scene. Several such instances can develop. You cannot imagine what situations may develop in any particular case. Therefore, when the employer comes to a bona fide conclusion, it should not be a pretense. It should not be, suppose an employee like me has spoken in some meetings or has even issued handbills, making certain allegations against the employer, saying that the employer is, may be a state, may be a public undertaking, whatever it is. He is practicing discriminatory measures where for the same conduct, it is treated as a misconduct and one set of employees are punished for identical conduct. No action is taken against them. And perhaps some of them may get promoted also to a selection course. In such a case, what happens? Holding of an inquiry may be embarrassing to the employer. That is, it is quite possible certain unpalatable truths might come out in the inquiry. Therefore, the courts have said that mere embarrassment to the employer cannot be said to be a reason to say that it is not practicably reasonable to hold the inquiry. It is not practicable to hold the inquiry or it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. Another test that is laid down is the situation which renders that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. Need not be existing on the day you issue the judgment. Such a situation can develop at any stage during the inquiry. In such cases also, it would be permissible for the employer to dispense with the inquiry from the stage at which such reasonable impracticability of holding the inquiry is. This is a case where, in fact, in Supreme Court by upholding clauses B and C. See, I will tell what is the exact provision of clause C is. Where the president or the governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of state, it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry. This normally arises when a civil servant is acted against for spying activities or from leaking certain interests of security of state, the information of security of state, several possibilities are. There were clause B and C. Clause B envisages dispensation of inquiry when the dismissing authority comes to a conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. Clause C envisages the situation where it is not expedient. Look at the words used. Clause B is reasonable impracticability of holding the inquiry. Clause C is inexperience of holding the inquiry. Inexperience is, situation is very peaceful. No witness is threatened. Everything is blue, moving like calm gadgets. No turbulence. But still, if something comes, if the charge is good, certain things will have to come on record. The charge has to be good. Those things coming out on record may threaten the security of the state. Of course, when we say security of state, I am not referring to the present day securities of sealed cover states where they give. Press freedom is corrected. Your permission to telecast is suspended. Then, when that action is questioned, the sealed cover is passed on to the court saying that if you give reasons, it will amount to threatening the security of the state. All such make believe inexperience. It must be a genuine interest of the state or security of the state. That would be security of the state, not even interest of the state. A genuine threat to, a genuine apprehension, a genuine cause to say that it is not expedient to hold the F. No, there are certain principles which have been evolved over a period of time. Certain employees of Rao in Satvir Singh, they were proceeded on the ground that they were proceeded and the employer came to conclude that it is not practicable to hold the empire. Of course, the employees were of research and analysis, but that itself was not sufficient to hold that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the empire. What happened was that the material witnesses who were co-employees of the accused, they would be intimidated not to tender evidence in the empire. It was a case where even if intimidation was not possible, no employee would generally come forward to tender evidence in support of charges because it was pursuant to a charter of demands of that particular association. There, Supreme Court approved dispensation of empire. Then in Ajay Manchanda, which emanated from Chindigarh, the dispensation of inquiry on the ground that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the empire. It was upheld on the basis of affidavits which said there were sufficient indications that the witness was being polarized and compelled to withdraw his statement to be given during the period of investigation. Dispensation of inquiry under clause B and clause C, though Tulsiram Kotel is a very elaborate judgment, ultimately the principal underlying the judgment is that while the security of tenure is necessary to have a fearless civil service, it is also necessary to bear in mind that interpretation of any law or the basis for any law should be largest good to the largest segment of the society or largest number of people. No doubt holding an inquiry in terms of principal part of article 311-2 is non-negotiable concept of security of tenure. But security of nation, which is governed by clause C of the provisional, is larger than security of tenure of the civil service. Similarly, if the inquiry is, if as we understand, the object of inquiry is to discern the proof and situations are such that the very object of discerning the proof by holding an inquiry is most likely to be defeated than it can be said that it is reasonably not practicable to hold an inquiry. But at the same time, in Tulsiram Kotel, it was also stated by the Supreme Court that the important aspect of why this security of tenure is required has to be borne in mind. And at the same, it should also be borne in mind that these provisals are exceptions to the principal part of article 311-2. And dispensation of the inquiry should not be used as a tool to dismiss or remove a civil servant. Where the management feels that or where the government feels that, it has no case to prove against the government's authority. See, these are all very high-sounding principles. Article 311-2, provisional clause B, we say that you need not hold an inquiry. An inquiry can be dispensed with where it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. It is not a very high-sounding principle evolved in the public industry. But there should also be a safeguard. The safeguard is the government cannot invoke this clause of reasonable impracticability to overcome a situation where it has no case to prove against the government's servant or where it has no evidence to prove the charge against the government's servant or to put it differently where the government wants to show on record that there are grave charges as a tool to remove him from service by resort to clause B saying that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. Two of these two provisions say that whether it is reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry or not, the decision of the dismissing authority is final. The courts have held that the stated finality in the rule would only open the doors for judicial revenue. That is notwithstanding the finality attached to it under the rule. A constitutional court under article 226 has jurisdiction to test the validity of dispensation of the inquiry with reference to requirements of clause B and clause C. Then there is one aspect of the matter where the judicial opinion is divided and the very nature of things, it has to be divided. For example, some judgments have said that the reasons why it is not practicable to hold the inquiry is to be stated in the order of punishment itself. That is, the judicial authority has to say it is order dismissing the employee. It is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry for one, two, three, four reasons. And then the employee will have an opportunity to question those reasons in a ritual. Then there are also judgments which have approved the cases of dispensation of inquiry which did not give any reason why the inquiry is impracticable to be held. On the ground that the reasons are such that their very disclosure would have endangered somebody earlier. Like in a case where witness is threatened and on that reason the inquiry is dispensed with. It may not be practicable to insist on reasons in the order of dismissal itself. Maybe it may come as offered a bit before the court where the employer will be required to explain the reasons on the basis of which the inquiry was dispensed with. Now as in the administrative law, there is always a difference between not necessary to convey the reasons and the concept that and the other extreme of saying not containing reasons at all. That is the difference between in some service rules without assigning any reason this contract can be cancelled. Or without assigning any reasons your services may be dispensed with. Even in such cases it is necessary that the file should contain the reasons. And those reasons will be tested by the constitutional court. On the anvil of the wording of article 311, proviso b2 plus 2 and proviso 3 to plus 2 whether on the reasons stated in the effort it is justified whether the employer was justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold it or whether disclosure or the holding of the empire was of course to interest of the security of the state. Therefore in larger public good these exceptions are envisaged. At the same time these exceptions cannot be invoked as a cloak to cover an act of victimization or an act of no evidence against the employer. Because as we have seen the essence of public service if you want a productive, honest, efficient public service which obeys the law and not the minister there must be security of tenure. And security of tenure in fact earlier the service rules used to contain a clause that any employer can be, services of any employer can be distanced with with three months notice or three months pay in lieu of notice. Those were held to be unconstitutional in Central England Water Transport case by Justice DP Madhav and by majority judgment of the Constitution Bank. In DT3 Majdur Congress case in both those judgments the why the security of tenure for public service is necessary in public interest and also in the interest of the employee have been explained in great detail. There were these clauses B and C of the proviso to article 312 will have to be understood in their proper perspective to be invoked only in rarest of rare cases which answer the phrase reasonably not practicable to hold the employee or not expedient to hold the employee in the interest of security of state. In fact at the point of time when we all entered the my generation entered the profession and we were talking about the glory of security of state and absence of policy of fire and fire in state services and public services. And judgment of the Constitution Bank in Tulsa Ram Patel came upholding these two provisions. Initially we were taken aback how the Supreme Court could have upheld these provisions. These provisions are not new. They were there originally in some forum. Thereafter will be 15 constitutional amendments in a modified forum. Only thing that triggered reference to Constitution Bank in Tulsa Ram Patel was by 42nd amendment right to be heard on proposal penalty was taken and there was a judgment rendered by 3 judges bench in T. R. Challapur which had taken a view that even on conviction if a person has to be punished without holding an inquiry some amount of say has to be given to the employee on the materials that led to conviction or an opportunity should be given to an employee to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction was not justified. Then there was another treatment which in I. M. Law which had said that Article 310 which says that every civil servant holds his office as long as pleasure of president of government is existing that is every civil servant shall hold office subject to pleasure of the president of government. Then to remove all these confusions of course on I. M. Law there was never any doubt. Subsequently in B. P. Singham that is about the removal of the governance this concept has again been discussed though governor is not a public servant he is not an employee of the state government he is not an employee of the central government Governors will be removed at every change of the central government then the Supreme God said that he may not be entitled to be put on he may not be entitled for disclosure of reasons but you cannot recall or remove a governor without there being reasons in fact the seed of the exceptions to doctrine of pleasure and how clauses B. and C. are justified the Tulsiram Patel is the answer it is one of the glorious statements rendered by Justice D. P. Madan one of the great constitutional judges who in fact wrote the Prajonath Gangulya statement also and now power to dispense with enquiry in the circumstances set out under clause B and clause C of Praviso below article 300 element 2 is unquestionable but at the same time the exercise of that power is available for judicial and judicial review exercise if the court comes to conclusion that there were no circumstances to hold that it was not reasonably practicable to hold or if the court comes to conclusion that it was not inexperienced to hold the enquiry for the reasons of secretary of state then those orders of the narrative can be successfully charged and one important aspect is these clauses can be invoked only where the misconduct is of a nature which would involve imposition of punishments referred to in those two respective clauses namely dismissal removal from service removal from service or reduction in rank for so it is lesser penalty enquiry cannot be dispatched because if the penalty is supposed to stopage of income that means charges not as grave as involving security of state or reasonably impracticable to hold the enquiry therefore in such cases penalty is less than reduction of rank the exercise has to dispense with the enquiry would not be permissive thank you very much it is a this dispensing with enquiry being an exception to the rule it is difficult to understand the exceptions general rule we are so much used to say that security of tenure the exceptions are always very limited and it would arise in very few cases very very few cases therefore as advocates you would find it difficult to understand the nonsense of these concepts but I think Tulsa Ram Patel gives a limited explanation of all these aspects therefore I commonly say in conclusion please read Tulsa Ram Patel it would give you a broad idea because I would use again the word broad because practical situations can never be predicated before that thank you very much thank you because and thank you thank you sir so one question which normally arises as I have seen that we say that conduct leading to the conviction has to be seen even that Tulsa Ram Patel 85 Supreme Court and 86 the citations vary it says there is a lot of debate as to how will you conclude that conduct leading to the conviction has to be seen number one and number two they say that in certain cases you have to hold an inquiry as to see as to what the conduct is that is meaning thereby you have to read that judgment but in some cases normally it is just like in prevention of corruption act they normally say that your conduct is of a moral depth you stand convicted you need not see what the conduct led to the conviction therefore your services can be dispensed away straight away in working article 311 or whatever the service regulations are so what would be your view on this particular aspect view on moral depth particular view on conviction and both because they say conduct leading to the conviction conduct leading to there can be cases where there can be conviction but the allocation itself may not be involved in moral depth but in case of allocations under prevention of corruption act it would require create insensitivity to morals to say that conviction does not involve moral depth yes as advocate because is right we have argued and we continue to argue that even taking a bribe does not involve moral depth because in this case I was framed but it is difficult to say that reasonably and when you are not appearing for the accused and we are not just posing the cause of the accused to say that conviction under prevention of corruption act does not involve moral depth it is impossible to say but at the same time take the case of conviction under negligible instruments a check bones case every conviction may not involve moral depth of the accused there nonetheless conduct leading to conviction for check bones in case is also a misconduct because most of the service rules contain a clause that employee shall conduct himself shall manage his affairs in such a manner that he is not unduly indebted this clause is there what is the meaning of unduly indebted that is a clause which lends itself to circumstantial interpretations it cannot be said that a person has managed his finances so badly that he does not have balance in the bank account to meet the check he has issued it is difficult to say that he does not invite an acts he does not invite an act therefore in substance circumstances punishment for breach of section 138 negligible instrument act it is possible to interpret that this conduct leading to conviction did not attract moral depth it is possible to at the same time in a given case it is possible to come to a conclusion that look this man is in the habit of issuing checks only to cheat the people then the conviction under negligible instrument act would also be one attractive model therefore it is a value judgment to be taken on the basis of facts and substance of each case of conviction to say whether it is of such a magnitude or involved moral condition moral amplitude that it attracts dismissal removal or reduction in rank that is the reason clause B where this dispensation with empire is there in the clause 1 that is clause A dispensation of empire conduct leading to conviction hearing on proposer penalty is still there you can find out to the employer that there is yes there is a conviction it is true but it does not attract the penalty of dismissal removal or reduction it is permissible or as said in Tulsa Ram Patel even where at the time of imposition of penalty you are not given an opportunity to provide a proposer penalty appeal against the punishment to the stage at which you can find out the disproportionate nature of the punishment it is also punishment then about what Mr. Vikas say about the conviction where conviction itself is suspended by the appellate court for example in criminal law appellate court has got power to suspend the sentence which they normally do and it also got power to suspend the conviction itself where conviction itself would be a disqualifying fact of course this concept was first stated with Supreme Court in the Narang verses Narang where the case of director of a company conviction he has to vacate office there is no choice in such cases appellate court if it is satisfied with the facts and circumstances of the case it can suspend the conviction then there is there is a provision under the banking regulation act that no banking company shall employ continue to continue to employ a person who has been convicted therefore a bank company who has been convicted without anything more is disqualified for holding employment in the bank in such cases perhaps the appellate court can invoke the power to suspend the conviction itself these days we are seeing the overcome the electoral disqualifications normally the appellate court states the conviction and there are cases where the convictions are not state also you are in such cases therefore there may be conviction whether it involves moral attitude or not is a question that has to be decided down a case to case based any conviction would not result in a punishment in a Haryana case where I for a petty offence which was compounded or not compounded whatever it gets you cannot invoke this provision and question in all these cases that would arise is whether it involves moral attitude there is a matter which can be agitated in that case second aspect is suppose a person convicted by the trial court he is acquitted in appeal or may be in special jurisdiction what happens then of course he will be entitled to see reinstatement and the treatment of the period during which he suffered because of the order of conviction it is a matter again to be settled on a case to case basis though in reserve bank of India's case supreme court has said he disabled himself from being employed therefore no question of back wages it is a grey area I think it would depend on the holding of the lid would depend upon case to case basis how I answered substantially your question but what you said on reinstatement the back wages though there is latest judgment also of 2020 Rajnarayan will say you will not be entitled for the back wages but there are certain statutory rules which provide that upon reinstatement upon acquittal then you will be entitled for back wages certain rules provide that the employer will decide I think that particularly rules will apply and what we say in law that judgments are not statutes the rule position if rule gives you the right you can take the right but my experience is that most of those rules they deal with back wages or suspension in cases of departmental influence not in cases of conviction take a case where a person is taken into custody there is a deemed suspension provision in the service rules where the period of custody exceeds 40 items by interpretation quotes have held that that deemed suspension is only for the purpose of regulating salary for that period since you would have disabled from attending the office that period will have to be treated as not on duty or he can he is under a deemed suspension but there are some cases where the quotes have held the moment he is released enlarged on bail if it is a case of deemed suspension the suspension should be revoked there are several aspects to this but on the question of back wages the cases where a person is removed an account of conviction what should be the back wages on his acquittal in appeal there is no rule governing the situation to mind almost if there is any rule a very happy position for the employee if there is no rule then it should be a discretionary order to be made by the employer and discretion means like every discretion it has to be exercised reasonably now there was a case where a person was convicted as being a part of an unlawful assembly when he had gone to his native place on leave to attend a village fair or village annual festival annual festival in a temple there in such case on conviction you cannot be this class B cannot be invoked therefore like all other powers the power to invoke clause regarding punishing without inquiry should also be tested on the annual law proportionality rational reasonableness in every case already power existence of power is one thing exercise of it is all together different the next question is which normally we again take like we have seen that you know the judgments of the cup so for a young lawyer or a lawyer how you tell that he should able to collate the judgments as to how it should correlate with the case law once he is with the case which he is preparing as I always say reading and assimilating the facts is the first thing you should not trust the law reporters you should address you can address run to your dictionary when a client comes to you to understand each and every fact of the facts you have to formulate what is a possible solution involved and accordingly you have to mold your case and I am not tired of telling that our problem today is too much emphasis on case law because what is happening is there is a such volume of case law generated and more than generation of case law volumes and volumes reported which will be reading almost every day because like we say that pray to God at least for 5 minutes a day before you go to bed most of us have the habit of at least reading what is reported in law journals of that particular day at least for 10 to 15 minutes in the before we retire for the day that 15 minutes reading of the law should not or a law report should not make us run to journals when a case comes when a case comes reading the brief Renan Martin and maybe Oxford Archive those should be our tools after that what is the law of course while reading the file as a matter of fact we should read the corresponding provision of laws most of the time interpretation of law will be based on plain language of the act or rule government and there should be minimal need for us to rush to the library this tendency to run to the library should be put on hold I don't say it should be stopped put on hold till you understand the facts and provisions that govern the particular situation that's clear I've just seen like Mr Uday Hula and yourself time and gain playing emphasis on Renan Martin as a profession if you have to take a leap like Wright brothers to fly Renan Martin has also become an essential feature to be for becoming a good lawyer so that you are able to understand the nuances of pressy writing making your submission in the right way which are what we say in a funnel manner or in a structured manner which can be understood in the right manner and time and again we have asked a lot of people still we will also gain if you have to make a you have to go to a place and once you have to start your argument what suggestion will you give to a young lawyer that how you should funnel his submissions I could not quite get your question because the opening statement before you start in the court what is the best way to put forward because the judge will they say the first impression is the last impression so how to make the judge I will not say downgrade but at least attach to your submission in the right way it is very often said that if you cannot make an impression on the court within your first 90 seconds then it is difficult to make it at the admission stage I have also read a statement made if you cannot make a case within 20 minutes better go home and write a book these are all only guidelines to guide us in the direction but I do not think there is a formula for your opening statement opening statement is important each advocate has his own style of formulating the opening statement can be the opening statement is what I have been practicing formulate the strongest argument you have on that case normally we might have raised several grounds grounds here to z then a a to z z triple a to triple z but most of it you would not be arguing even in the final hearing of the retreats ultimately even in the final hearing of the retreat maximum generally 2 maximum 5 points you formulate strongest of those grounds on which you you want to make your case state the first two grounds in the first minute my lord he was an employee and then he has not been promoted start your statement like this one of the members of the departmental promotion committee was not qualified to be appointed or made a member of the departmental promotion committee or I am here or you say say for example in the matter of promotion to IAS you want an admission only at that stage because promotions are rarely stated you say this is contrary to rule 5 of appointment IAS by promotion rules in as much as I was within the age limit of 54 years as on the relevant date but by a wrong interpretation of the rule I have not been considered by the selection yes you may have hundreds of grounds make that statement which indicates the violation of rule or provision ultimately we can get we can get relief only when we point out breach of rules or rule or rule book which is breach then it may if it is possible in some cases every rule would have been apparently followed but substantially breached as the case of but where what is consideration for promotion in such cases opening statement may be difficult but in majority of the cases it is possible to make an opening statement referring to the breach of rule in other cases yes it is your what dialogue you write either whether you have a Gujarat whether who is your Gujarat writing dialogue for you or whether what would be the dialogue you formulate that is just it happens I cannot say how it is made some things happen most of the things we prepare and make a statement sometimes that statement just comes out that statement would come out though most of us say luckily the statement came not luckily that statement comes depending upon the extent of assimilation of facts that has occurred inside you have to intern those facts then one sentence which will clinch will come out that's true the more you practice the more you read the judgments then automatically you have a vocabulary and content by presenting in the quote improves because ultimately those words which we use like in a law somebody says we have been failing to understand why do we say null and void because the meaning continues to remain the same thank you sir for sharing your knowledge it is always a pleasure connecting with your entire team we are thankful to Mr. Jiyan and Ashwini who has been helping us to connect with you and of course we have a direct access to you thank you everyone stay safe, stay blessed and have a happy weekend thank you