"When a court deals with a matter that has something likely to affect a person's reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to.
"The advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said," a bench of justices Anil R Dave and Dipak Misra said.
The single judge had made the adverse remarks while deciding a petition filed by one Kanwar Bhan working as Assistant Registrar of cooperative societies in Haryana.
On February 4, 2001 during a state function, 'Sarkar Aapke Dwar', Chautala received a complaint about the working of Bhan. Chautala announced Bhan's suspension at a press conference the same day. His suspension was followed by him being charge sheetedin March 2002. He was however, reinstated pending inquiry after he moved court by way of a writ petition.
In 2007, on Bhan's petition, high court asked government to complete the inquiry in six months. Since the same was not done, in 2009 a single judge of the high court set aside the charge sheet filed against him and the punishment with further directions to release all the pension and pensionary benefits due to him within a period of one month with ten per cent annual interest from the due date to the date of payment.
Chautala's plea against it before the division bench was also rejected following which he moved the Supreme Court.