Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Chandra Roy vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Jharkhan on 15 June, 2012
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 2755 of 2012
Dinesh Chandra Roy Vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ano.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.Rajan Raj
For the Respondents : M/s.Ajit Kumar,Kumar Sundaram
th
Dated 15 , June, 2012
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner at the relevant time was a Member of the
Superior Judicial Service and was holding the post of Addl. District
& Sessions JudgecumSpecial Judge, CBI, Fodder Scam, Ranchi
cumAJC, Civil Court, Ranchi and was in seisin of Lower Bazar P.S.
Case No.208/2010, corresponding to G.R No.4996/2010 and S.T
No.515/2011. The accused of that case approached this Court by
filing bail application, B.A No.1223/2012, wherein learned Single
Judge of this Court by order dated 16.3.2012 allowed the bail
application and while doing so, observed that before the petitioner
the case was pending on the point of framing of charge for the last
six months but the petitioner did not frame the charge against the
accused person and thereafter further observed that "formed habit
of adjourning the case on the whimsical request of A.P.P" and
therefore, learned Single Judge held that it is a case of negligence
on the part of the petitioner and the negligent act of the petitioner
is required to be recorded in his ACR, for which the matter may be
placed before Hon'ble Zonal Judge of the district of Ranchi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned
Single Judge should not have passed any order in judicial side so
as to put any remark in ACR and if the learned Single Judge was of
the view that the matter required consideration with respect to the
conduct of the petitioner, then the matter should have been
referred to the High Court/Chief Justice for consideration and
straightway passing order of adverse remark to be recorded in ACR
is wholly without jurisdiction as it could not have been passed as a
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the High
Court against the petitioner so as to make it binding upon the
appointing/disciplinary authority to record adverse remarks in the
ACR without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
without enquiry and without holding him guilty. It is also
submitted that the only allegation in the impugned order is that
the petitioner did not frame charge in a criminal case for six
months and adjourned the matter on the request of A.P.P. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in fact, it was duly
explained by the ordersheets themselves that the case was
adjourned even for the reason of transfer of A.P.P. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was holding
the charge of the court dealing with the cases of C.B.I as well as
infamous Fodder Scam cases and therefore, he was supposed to
give priority to the cases of C.B.I and Fodder Scam cases which are
A.H.D cases of C.B.I.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two
judgments of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kashi Nath
Roy Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996)4 SCC 539 and of Braj
Kishore Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 4
SCC 65, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a matter
of bail granted by the District & Sessions Judge, order of bail was
challenged before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of
the High Court, after calling for a report from the District &
Sessions Judge and considering the said report, cancelled the bail
and also made severe stricture against the Judicial Officer which
was held to be unwarranted and had been expunged and in the
earlier case also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the similar situation
quashed the adverse observation.
4. We need not go into the details of the case but it is now a
settled law that while deciding the matter in judicial side, if the
court was of the opinion that matter was required to be
considered with respect to even Judicial Officer for passing any
order in administrative side, then that matter could be referred to
the High Court/Chief Justice for initiation of appropriate
departmental proceeding. If any order requiring to record adverse
remark/entry in the ACR is straightway passed in judicial side,
then that deprives the disciplinary authority from its power of
taking appropriate action against the guilty person as well as
denies opportunity to the delinquent officer in defending him for
the allegation of lapses on his part. It is also a settled law that the
High Court or the appellate court should keep retrained while
making observation against the Judicial Officer. It is also an
admitted case that before passing order against the petitioner, no
notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioner by
the learned Single Judge and obtaining a status report of a case is
only an act of obtaining material for forming opinion and after
obtaining material and forming prima facie opinion, the matter
may be subject matter for departmental enquiry, which can be
initiated by the appointing/disciplinary authority. In departmental
enquiry, all materials including, if any admission of guilty officer is
there, then that admission is required to be brought to the notice
of the officer, so that he may give his explanation. In present case,
petitioner had no knowledge of any charge against him, nor
collection of information from petitioner can be said to be
opportunity to explain the conduct of the petitioner. From one
case, the opinion could not have been formed that the petitioner
formed habit of adjourning the case on whimsical request of A.P.P.
Therefore, such matter can be dealt with and decided only in
administrative side.
5. In view of the above reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that adverse remarks made against the writ petitioner in
the last paragraph, which are quoted below, of the order dated
16.3.2012passed in B.A No.1223/2012 are expunged : "I have gone through the report submitted by the concerned A.J.CIVcumSpecial Judge, CBI/AHD, Ranchi, sent to this Court on 02.03.2012. The case is pending for hearing on the point of framing of charge for the last six months but the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has failed to frame the charge against the accused persons and formed habit of adjourning the case on the whimsical request of APP. I feel this is nothing but negligence on the part of A.J.C - IV - cumSpecial Judge, CBI/AHD, Ranchi and therefore, this negligence act of concerned A.J.C - IVcumSpecial Judge, CBI/AHD, Ranchi, is required to be recorded in his ACR for which the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble Zonal Judge of the District Ranchi."
This writ petition is accordingly allowed.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.) (Alok Singh, J.) dey