Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.— 1. This Special Appeal has been filed by Sri Kamal Kishore Sharma, District Judge, Lucknow only for expunging/setting aside the observations/remarks and order to place the remark in the personal file of the appellant vide order dated 23.5.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.136 (R/C) 2012 in re: Girish Chopra v. District Judge, Lucknow and others. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri J.N. Mathur for respondent no.2. 3. At the very outset, we make it clear that that we are neither concerned with the justifiability of the order passed by the District Judge, nor are we required to dwell upon the legal pregnability of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as far as it pertains to the dislodging of the order passed by the District Judge, Lucknow. We are only inclined to address the issue: Whether the aforesaid remarks and the directions have been made in consonance with the principles that have been laid down by the various pronouncements of the Apex Court and is in accord with judicial decorum and propriety? 4. The Apex Court has, in the case of Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2012) 6 SCC 491 , after discussing the cases of Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Mohammad Isa ( AIR 1963 SC 1728 ), Alok Kumar Roy v. S.N. Sarma ( AIR 1968 SC 453 ), Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of P & H ( AIR 1988 SC 1395 ), K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1994 SC 1031 ), Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1996 SC 3240 ), Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India (1997 SCC (Crl.) 514), 'K' A Judicial Officer, In re, ( AIR 2001 SC 972 ) and Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar ( AIR 2005 SC 3309 ) has held as under: - "25. In State of Bihar v. Nilmani Sahu and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 211 a sitting judge of the Patna High Court had approached this Court for expunction of the some observations made by this Court in disposing of a special leave petition arising out of a land acquisition proceeding. In State of Bihar v. Nilmani Sahu and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 211 a sitting judge of the Patna High Court had approached this Court for expunction of the some observations made by this Court in disposing of a special leave petition arising out of a land acquisition proceeding. A Bench of this Court had used the expression ?We find that the view taken by the learned Singh Judge, Justice P. K. Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious?. The learned Single Judge had treated this to be stigmatic and approached this Court and raised a contention that it was not necessary for the decision. A two-Judge Bench of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgment of this Court opined the expression used in the judgment was wholly inappropriate inasmuch as when this Court uses an expression against the judgment of the High Court it must be in keeping with dignity of the person concerned. Eventually, the said observations were deleted. 26. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite clear that for more than four decades this Court has been laying emphasis on the sacrosanct duty of a Judge of a superior Court how to employ the language in judgment so that a message to the officer concerned is conveyed. It has been clearly spelt out that there has to be a process of reasoning while unsettling the judgment and such reasoning are to be reasonably stated with clarity and result orientation. A distinction has been lucidly stated between a message and a rebuke. 27. A Judge is required to maintain decorum and sanctity which are inherent in judicial discipline and restraint. A judge functioning at any level has dignity in the eyes of public and credibility of the entire system is dependent on use of dignified language and sustained restraint, moderation and sobriety. It is not to be forgotten that independence of judiciary has an insegregable and inseparable link with its credibility. Unwarranted comments on the judicial officer creates a dent in the said credibility and consequently leads to some kind of erosion and affects the conception of rule of law. It is not to be forgotten that independence of judiciary has an insegregable and inseparable link with its credibility. Unwarranted comments on the judicial officer creates a dent in the said credibility and consequently leads to some kind of erosion and affects the conception of rule of law. The sanctity of decision making process should not be confused with sitting on a pulpit and delivering sermons which defy decorum because it is obligatory on the part of the superior Courts to take recourse to correctional measures. A reformative method can be taken recourse to on the administrative side. 28. It is condign to state it should be paramount in the mind of a Judge of superior Court that a Judicial officer projects the face of the judicial system and the independence of judiciary at the ground reality level and derogatory remarks against a judicial officer would cause immense harm to him individually (as the expunction of the remarks later on may not completely resuscitate his reputation) but also affects the credibility of the institution and corrodes the sacrosanctity of its zealously cherished philosophy. A judge of a superior Court however strongly he may feel about the unmerited and fallacious order passed by an officer, but is required to maintain sobriety, calmness, dispassionate reasoning and poised restraint. The concept of loco parentis has to take a foremost place in the mind to keep at bay any uncalled for any unwarranted remarks. 29. Every judge has to remind himself about the aforesaid principles and religiously adhere to them. In this regard it would not be out of place to sit in the time machine and dwell upon the sagacious saying of an eminent author who has said that there is a distinction between a man who has command over ?Shastras? and the other who knows it and puts into practice. He who practises them can alone be called a ?vidvan?. Though it was told in a different context yet the said principle can be taken recourse to, for one may know or be aware of that use of intemperate language should be avoided in judgments but while penning the same the control over the language is forgotten and acquired knowledge is not applied to the arena of practice. Or to put it differently the knowledge stands still and not verbalised into action. Or to put it differently the knowledge stands still and not verbalised into action. Therefore, a committed comprehensive endeavour has to be made to put the concept to practice so that it is concretised and fructified and the litigations of the present nature are avoided. 5. Coming to the case at hand, in our considered opinion, the observations, the comment and the eventual directions were wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. The learned District Judge had acted on the basis of the directions given by this Court in Ganga Prasad v. M/S Haneef Opticians and others (2005 Vol.2 ARC page 723) in which this Court has directed that the District Judge while granting stay order shall impose condition of payment of reasonable amount, which may be about 50% of current rent (i.e. rent on which building in dispute may be let out at the time of stay order, in this no detailed enquiry needs be made mere guess work based on common sense may do). The learned Single Judge, as is manifest, had a different perception of the whole scenario. Perception of fact and application of law may be erroneous, but that never warrants such kind of observations and directions. 6. Regard being had to the aforesaid, we unhesitatingly expunge the remarks and the direction. A copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of this Court to be placed on the personal file of the Judicial Officer concerned. 7. The appeal is allowed accordingly. _____________