JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the order Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007 passed by the respondent No.1 the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, "the DRAT" hereinafter), so far it relates to adverse findings against the officials of the petitioner bank and requiring the management of the petitioner bank to take administrative action against its officials, have been sought to be quashed. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 2 availed cash credit facility of Rs. 15 lac from Bhagat-Ki-Kothi Branch, Jodhpur of the petitioner bank on 22.01.2001 and executed the documents to that effect. The respondent No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the credit facility borrowed by the respondent No. 2, the borrower. However, on moving an application by the respondent No.2 the borrower, the cash credit facility was enhanced from Rs. 15 lac to Rs. 20 lac on 04.10.2001. The respondent No. 2 failed to repay the dues as per the terms of agreement and, therefore, the account of the respondent No.2 was classified as N.P.A., as per the Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act of 2002" hereinafter) was issued to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 challenged the said notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 before a Division Bench of this Court by filing a writ petition, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4590/2003, which came to be disposed of in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India and thereafter the petitioner bank preferred an application No. 6/2003 before the respondent No. 1 DRAT for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,51,374.86p. Against the respondents No. 2 and 3. The recovery application filed by the petitioner bank came to be allowed by the respondent No. 1 DRAT vide order dated 01.10.2004 and a recovery certificate for Rs. 23,51,374.96p. was issued in favour of the petitioner bank along with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 26.12.2002 till realisation vide Annx. 23,51,374.86p. Against the respondents No. 2 and 3. The recovery application filed by the petitioner bank came to be allowed by the respondent No. 1 DRAT vide order dated 01.10.2004 and a recovery certificate for Rs. 23,51,374.96p. was issued in favour of the petitioner bank along with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 26.12.2002 till realisation vide Annx. 1, During pendency of the proceedings, the respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted a compromise proposal and offered to deposit Rs. 16 lac as full and final settlement of account, whereas on the relevant date the total outstanding, amount was Rs. 23.50 lac against them; however the petitioner bank considered the said compromise proposal keeping in view the heavy outstanding dues against the respondents No. 2 and 3 and rejected the same by Annx.2 dated 09.02.2004. Being aggrieved by rejection of the compromise-proposal vide Annx. 2 dated 09.02.2004, the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1298/2004, which came to he disposed of vide order dated 09.04.2004 with a direction that if the respondents No. 2 and 3 deposit 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days from the date of the order and submit a fresh proposal to the petitioner bank, the same would be considered by the petitioner hank sympathetically in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, vide Annx. 3. Instead of depositing 25% amount of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days, as directed by this Court vide order Annx. 3 dated 09.04.2004, the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an application seeking modification of the order Annx. 3 dated 09.04.2004 and by the order dated 10.05.2004, the order Annx. 3 dated 09.04.2004 came to be modified, again directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to deposit 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days from the date of the order and to submit a fresh proposal to the petitioner bank. The modification was virtually the extension of the period as the other conditions including deposit of 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days and permitting the respondents No. 2 and 3 to make a fresh proposal, remained intact. It appears from the record that on 25.07.2004, a sum of Rs. 4.25 lac by a cheque was deposited by the respondents No. 2 and 3 with the petitioner bank. 17 lac within 15 days and permitting the respondents No. 2 and 3 to make a fresh proposal, remained intact. It appears from the record that on 25.07.2004, a sum of Rs. 4.25 lac by a cheque was deposited by the respondents No. 2 and 3 with the petitioner bank. Since respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to deposit the amount as directed by this Court within the stipulated period and, therefore, the petitioner bank was under no obligation to consider such proposal made by the respondents No. 2 and 3, more particularly without a proper deposit of the amount as per the directions of this Court and, therefore, the proposal so submitted by the respondents No. 2 and 3 came to be rejected by the communication dated 13.07.2004 (Annx.6). The respondent No. 2 again challenged the order Annx. 6 dated 13.07.2004 by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3057/2004 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 29.07.2004 vide Annx. 7. The order Annx. 7 dated 29.07.2004 came to be challenged by the respondent No. 2 before a Division Bench of this Court by filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 544/2004, which came to he dismissed. After dismissal of the special appeal by the Division Bench, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1 DRAT. 1 he respondent No. 1 DRAT, without considering the developments, as noticed in the preceding paragraph that on several occasions the respondents No. 2 and 3 were permitted to deposil certain amount vide various orders of this Court and thereafter submit fresh proposal which the respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to do so, yet the respondent No. 1 DRAT observed that at one point of time the respondent No. 2 offered a sum of Rs. 17 lac towards one time settlement and when such proposal was made before the High Court, the Bank agreed for accepting the said amount in full and final settlement of its claim but for some reasons the matter could not be settled. It was further observed by the DRAT that the respondent No. 2 is willing to pay Rs. 19 lac, however the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank denied the settlement made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and submitted that the decretal amount is more than Rs. 23 lac. Ultimately, by the order dated 07.08.2006 (Annx. It was further observed by the DRAT that the respondent No. 2 is willing to pay Rs. 19 lac, however the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank denied the settlement made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and submitted that the decretal amount is more than Rs. 23 lac. Ultimately, by the order dated 07.08.2006 (Annx. 16), the respondent No.1 DRAT directed that if the respondent No. 2 deposits Rs. 20 lac in all and deposits Rs. 15 lac (after adjusting Rs. 5 lac deposit earlier) upto 31.10.2006, the petitioner bank shall accept the same as full and final settlement of its claim. However that order came to be challenged by the petitioner hank before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 6194/2006, which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2006 by quashing the order Annx. 16 dated 07.08.2006 passed by the DRAT. It appears from the pleadings that the matter has travelled to the DRAT and this Court on several occasions, more particularly at the instance of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and ultimately, by the order dated 22.02.2007 (Annx. 18), the respondent DRAT passed an order as under "The callous attitude calls for appropriate administrative action against these officials . This Tribunal desires the Chairman/Managing Director of the respondent-bank to initiate appropriate administrative action against the concerned officials of the Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur Branch who have shown scant respect to this Tribunal." The respondent No. 1 DRAT further directed the present respondents No. 2 and 3 to move an application for initialing action against the officials of the petitioner bank under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in compliance thereof, the respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted an application under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 22 RDDB & Fls. Act, 1993 and rule 22 of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 for initiating action against the bank officials vide Annx. 9. Aggrieved by the observations made by the respondents No. 1 DRAT vide Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007, to the extent directing to intiate action against the officials of the petitioner bank, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents did not file any reply to the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record. 5. 18 dated 22.02.2007, to the extent directing to intiate action against the officials of the petitioner bank, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents did not file any reply to the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 DRAT fell in error in issuing direction, vide Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007, for taking administrative action against the officials of the petitioner bank. It has been contended that taking administrative action against its officials is a prerogative of the management and the management can take administrative action only when the management comes to the conclusion that an officer/official is guilty of misconduct; however the respondent No. 1 DRAT cannot encroach upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the petitioner bank's management for proceeding against any employee of the petitioner bank. It has been contended that for the misconduct, it is exclusive within the domain of the management of the bank and not with the respondent No.1 DRAT and by giving such directions by the respondent No. 1 DRAT, the discretion of the management of the petitioner bank has been usurped by the respondent No. 1 DRAT and, therefore, the observations made in the impugned order Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007 by the respondent No. 1 DRAT, to this extent, is wholly without authority of law and also without jurisdiction. It has further been contended that the impugned order, to the extent challenged in the writ petition is erroneous for the reasons that it is based on appreciation of fads, which are otherwise incorrect, as the certified copy of the order of the High Court was very much available on record of the respondent No. 1 DRAT as the same has been submitted by the respondent No. 2, the borrower and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1 the DRAT to have got agitated on the non-submission of the certified copy of the order by the officials of the petitioner bank. Whether the certified copies are submitted by the petitioner bank or by the respondent No. 2 and 3, makes no difference since the certified copies were available on the record and were to be looked into by the respondent No. 1 DRAT. Whether the certified copies are submitted by the petitioner bank or by the respondent No. 2 and 3, makes no difference since the certified copies were available on the record and were to be looked into by the respondent No. 1 DRAT. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions in : Gautam Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 148 ; Testa Setalvad & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 88 ; A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 533 . In the Matter of RV", A Judicial Officer, (2004) 7 SCC 729 ; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Babu Chakraborthy, (2004) 12 SCC 201 and In the matter of: "K" A Judicial Officer, (2001) 3 SCC 54 . 6. In Gautam Sinha v. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra), the High Court directed the Slate Government to place petitioner therein viz. Gautam Sinha, a Government servant, under suspension on the mere ground that a case had been filed against him by his erstwhile wife for offence under Secs. 406 and 498-A IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it amounts to practically taking over the function of the employer in deciding as to the desirability of keep a public servant under suspension or not. When the petitioners approached the High Court for quashing the prosecution proceedings, the High Court should have refrained from passing any direction detrimental to him, apart, from dismissing the petition for quashment. On these premises, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks in para No. 10 of the judgment of the High Court.In Testa Setalvad & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under "Time and again the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of making observations in judgments, unless the persons in respect of whom comments and criticism were being made were parties to the proceedings, and further were granted an opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on such persons. Apart from that, when there is no relevance to the subject-matter of adjudication, it is certainly not desirable for the Courts to make any comments or observations reflecting on the bona fides or credibility of any person or their actions. Apart from that, when there is no relevance to the subject-matter of adjudication, it is certainly not desirable for the Courts to make any comments or observations reflecting on the bona fides or credibility of any person or their actions. Observations should not be made by Court against persons and authorities, unless they are essential or necessary for decision of the case. Rare should he the occasion and necessities alone should call for its resort." In A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the avoidance of even the appearances of bitterness, so important in a Judge, required him not to cast aspersions on the professional conduct of the appellant and that too without an opportunity for him once the Judge had held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the review' petition. The observations made and aspersions cast on the professional conduct of the appellant are not only without jurisdiction, but also they are wholly and utterly unjustified and unwarranted. Therefore, all the remarks made by the Judge against the appellant in the impugned order are expunged.In 'RV', A judicial Officer (supra), while expunging the remarks made against the officer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the same were uncalled for and should not have been made a part of judicial pronouncement, more so when made without affording a Judicial Officer an opportunity of hearing.In State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Babu Chakraborthy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that passing disparaging remarks or strictures against the officers concerned without affording an opportunity of being heard, is not justified. It was further held that disparaging remarks are not to be made unless they are necessary for the decision of the case.The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as under:- "The High Court was not justified and correct in passing observations/strictures against Appellants 2 and 3 without affording an opportunity of being heard, and it is in violation of a catena of pronouncements of the Supreme Court that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to he made against the persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case. Likewise, the directions issued by the High Court to the trial Court to lodge a complaint to the Magistrate having jurisdiction for prosecuting appellants 2 and 3 for having committed an offence under Sec. 58 of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Sections 166 and 167 IPC is not warranted. The action taken by Appellants 2 and 3 has been taken in the case of discharging of their official duties. While discharging their duties, the officials would have violated certain provisions. That does not enable the Court to pass strictures against the officials and order compensation." In K', A judicial Officer (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Judge entrusted with the task of administering justice should be bold and feel fearless while acting judicially and giving expression to his views and constructing his judgment or order. It should be no deterrent to formation and expression of an honest opinion and acting thereon so long as it is within four-corners of law that any action taken by a subordinate judicial officer is open to scrutiny in judicial review before a superior forum with which its opinion may not meet approval and the superior Court may upset his action or opinion. The availability of such fearlessness is essential for the maintenance of judicial independence. However, sobriety, cool, calm and poise should be reflected in every action and expression of a Judge. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct. 7. In the instant case, the respondent No. 2, the borrower and the respondent No. 3, the guarantor failed to repay the amount of loan taken by the respondent No. 2 from the petitioner hank even after the notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 was served on them. The respondents No. 2 and 3 repeatedly approached before this Court by way of filing successive writ petitions and even after passing the orders by this Court, they failed to deposit the outstanding loan amount as directed by this Court and to submit compromise-proposal, within the stipulated period, yet on successive writ petition, this Court extended the period for depositing the amount as directed in the earlier order. The respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to deposit the amount as also to submit compromise-proposal. Even otherwise, the total outstanding amount way back on 26.12.2002 was Rs. 23.50 lac and the petitioner hank was under no obligation to settle the huge dues for a lesser amount of RS. 17 lac. Therefore, it cannot be said that the officials of the petitioner bank had a mala fide intention or inaction on their part in dealing with the matter. So far as certified copy of the order of this Court is concerned, that came to be filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 before respondent No. 1 DRAT and it was for the respondent No. 1 DRAT to have looked into the same instead of saying that the petitioners failed to file a copy of the order of this Court. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view the respondent No. 1 DRAT fell in error in passing the impugned order Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007 and directing the petitioner bank to initiate action against the officials of the petitioner bank. Therefore, the impugned order Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007, to the extent directing the petitioner bank to initiate action against its officials, is erroneous and such adverse remarks and direction against the officials of the petitioner bank in para No. 9 of the impugned order Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007 is hereby expunged and also quash the proceeding, if any, initiated against the officials of the petitioner bank in furtherance of the impugned order Annx. 18 dated 22.02.2007. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The stay petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******