J.K. Sobti Assistant District Attorney vs Surat Singh and Others

Ashok Bhan, J.—This petition has been filed by Shri J.K. Sobti, Assistant District Attorney (hereinafter referred to as ''the petitioner'') under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for expunction of remarks passed against him by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Panipat, vide order dated 18.5.1994 in Civil Suit No. 1045 of 1991, Annexure P-3, and order dated 15.12.1993 in Civil Suit No. 173 of 1993, Annexure P-4.

Facts leading to passing of order Annexure P-3 are that one Surat Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State of Haryana. Notice of this suit was given to the State pf Haryana. State of Haryana put in appearance and filed an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act requesting the Court to stay the proceedings in the Civil suit and refer the parties before the Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. By mistake, the case was adjourned to 30.8.1992, which was a Sunday. The case was taken up for hearing on 31.8.1992. In the meantime, the Ahlmad of the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Panipat, recorded in the margin of the order sheet that Civil Suit No. 1045 of 1991 is to be transferred to Karnal Courts as the cases pertaining to Tehsil Assandh were to be tried at Karnal, having territorial jurisdiction of such area. On the basis of this report, the petitioner was under the impression that the suit pending in the Court of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Panipat stands transferred to Karnal Courts and accordingly, addressed a communication No. 2297/D.A.P. dated 31.8.1992, Annexure P-l, to the District Attorney, Karnal informing him that the suit titled as "Surat Singh v. State of Haryana'' is being transferred to the Karnal Courts and, therefore, the file was being sent for necessary action. Infact, the suit was not transferred and on 23.11.1993, the defendant-State of Haryana was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. An application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent did not raise any objection for setting aside the impugned ex-parte order. It was rather conceded that the ex-parte order be set aside. Trial Court did not accept this waiver of the objection by the plaintiff-respondent and dismissed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order. While passing this order, certain remarks had been passed against the petitioner for his being negligent inasmuch as he did not appear intentionally and deliberately and further that he was negligent in the execution of vested interests. Petitioner being aggrieved against the aforesaid remarks made against him in the judgment, has preferred the present revision petition.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Mittal, counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection to the expunction of remarks made against the petitioner.

From the narration of the aforesaid facts, it would be clear that the case was purported to have been transferred to Karnal Courts and thereafter the Government Pleader did not appear in the aforesaid case and ultimately, the defendant-State was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. On an application filed by the State for setting aside the ex-parte order, the learned trial Court proceeded to observe to the effect that the Government Pleader did not appear intentionally and deliberately and was negligent in discharge of his duties.

Under the given circumstances, there is no material before the Court to record a finding that the petitioner did not appear intentionally or deliberately. Since the case was to be transferred to Karnal Courts, the petitioner was under the impression that the case has been transferred to Karnal Courts and accordingly, informed his immediate superior District Attorney, Karnal on 31.8.1992, regarding the impending transfer of the suit from the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Panipat to the Courts at Karnal. This could have been, under the circumstances, a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner in not putting in appearance as he was labouring under the impression that the suit stands transferred to the Courts at Karnal.

Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the remarks made against the petitioner in order Annexure P-3, by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Panipat, to the effect that the petitioner did not appear intentionally and deliberately and further that he was negligent and lax in the performance of his duties, are expunged.

Now, coming to the order dated 15.12.1993, Annexure P-4, passed in Civil Suit No. 173 of 1993 (Dharam Pal Dahiya v. State of Haryana) the Sub Judge 1st Class, Panipat, observed that the petitioner was negligent in execution of his duties as Government Pleader because he failed to file written statement despite three opportunities granted from time to time. The defence of State of Haryana was ordered to be struck off. Learned Sub Judge, again in this order, has failed to explain as to how the petitioner was personally responsible for not filing the written statement. Written Statement may not have been filed because of the non-cooperation of the department concerned.

Under the circumstances, the remarks made by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Panipat in his order dated 15.12.1993, Annexure P-4, against the petitioner that he is negligent in the performance of his duties are ordered to be expunged.

The revision petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.