Order Heard counsel for the parties. The facts stated in this writ application and those that have been discovered in the course of the proceeding. disclose a very sad state of affars, and we are constrained to observed that if members of the bar do no discharge their duties with the high sense of responsibility which is expected of them, and do not take care to see to it that no statement is made at the bar which may be found to be factually incorrect, the court may be persuaded to pass an unjust order on the basis of factually wrong statement made at the Bar. It appears that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9758 of 1992 proceeded to pass an order on 14.5.93 under the impression that the petitioner in that writ petition had been proceeded against in a departmental proceeding which was pending inquiry. The relevant part of the order is as follows :- “It is stated on behalf of the State that against the petitioner a proceeding had already been drawn up in respect of his action and conduct in Dhanbad, and when the petitioner did not perform his duty at Jamshedpur, this additional charge was also included in respect of the inquiry already pending against him." It is quite clear, therefore, that a specific representation was made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State that a departmental proceeding had already been initiated against the petitioner and certain alterations in the charges were also made. The statement is specific and permits of no ambiguity. In this Writ application the petitioner bas brought to our notice the fact that no such departmental proceeding was either pending on 14.5.1993, the date of the order, nor has any proceeding been initiated thereafter. It is therefore not possible to give to the State even the benefit of doubt by assuming that on the date on which the order was passed the proceeding had been actually initiated but the formal order may have been communicated on a subsequent date. We have, therefore no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the statement was incorrect, and that led this court to pass the order that it did on. 14-5-1993. We have, therefore no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the statement was incorrect, and that led this court to pass the order that it did on. 14-5-1993. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been stated that since the Government pleader had advised the Government that there was no bar to initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner a draft show cause was prepared and approved by the Government, but that was not issued. In the meantime the High Court was pleased to pass the aforesaid order on 14.5.1993. We have serious doubt about the truthfulness of the statement. Even if we assume the statement to be correct that did not justify the milking of a statement before this court that a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner in which charges had been altered. It is needless for us to repeat that unless the Bench and the Bar interact with a degree of mutual faith and trust, the system cannot function effectively. If We suspect every statement made at the Bar, it would be difficult for this court to dispose of matters, particularly having regard to the manner of drafting of pleadings in this court, which we at times understand only with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the parties. Be that as it may, a false statement made at the bar is a very serious misconduct apart from the fact that it may lead the court to pass on unjust order adversely effecting the interest of the parties and resulting In Injustice. On the other hand if unchecked, it sets a bad trend and a wrong precedent encouraging such behaviors We may sound a note of caution to all members of the Bar that if they make a statement at the Bar which they want the court to act upon, they must take responsibility for the statement made, and if found to be unture. face the consequences We can appreciate that the statement may be made On instruction Where such a statement is made on instruction it should be clearly stated at the Bar on whose instruction such statement is being made. face the consequences We can appreciate that the statement may be made On instruction Where such a statement is made on instruction it should be clearly stated at the Bar on whose instruction such statement is being made. If such statement is made on the basis of any written instruction that should also be made clear, so that in case charge is made against the counsel concerned, he can rely upon the written instruction to justify the statement end to safeguard his interest. To same extent, we may caution ourselves against playing reliance on such statements made at the Bar which are not borne out by the record. The Court may be justified in insisting that such statements should be made in writing in the form of an affidavit so that it forms part of the record. In the instant case therefore, we are left with no option but to recall the order passed by this Court on 14.5.1993. Accordingly the order dated 14.5.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No, 9758 of 1992 is recalled. Let the aforesaid writ application be placed for admission before the appropriate Bench after obtaining necessary directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Needless to say that the Bench dealing with the application will deal all aspects of the matter, C.W.J.C. No. 6696 of 1993 is accordingly allowed Application allowed.