Om Prakash And Ors vs Nariya And Ors

These review petitions have been moved praying for deleting the observations made in para no.8 of the judgment dated 7.7.2015 passed by this Court in relation to the functioning of the review petitioner Shri O.P. Saharan, which reads as under :-

"8. This Court is of the further view that the Disciplinary Authority of the author of said order, Mr. O.P. Saharan be directed to make entries in the red ink in the service record of Mr. O.P. Saharan, with reference to this order. A the same time, a notice may be served upon Mr. O.P. Saharan to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated for passing such baseless orders and then, take appropriate disciplinary action against him in accordance with law."

Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that before passing strictures/remarks, it is settled law that the concerned officer ought to be given an opportunity of hearing. He also submits that the proceedings taken as a disciplinary authority are of quasi judicial nature and unless the concerned person was impleaded as a party with allegations of bias or prejudice, no observation of such nature were required to be made in the judgment. He has relied upon the following decisions :-

(I) K.S. Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1991) 2 RLR 312 ;

(II) Sita Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(4) WLC (Raj.) 97.

(III) Awani Kumar Upadhyay vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 392.

(IV) Om Prakash Chautala vs. Kanwar Bhan and others reported in (2014) 52 SCC 417.

(V) Manish S. Pardasani (M/s Wine Kornder) and others vs. Inspector State Excise, P-1, Division Mumbai (Suburbs) and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 660.

wherein this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deleted/expunged the disparaging remarks which may have come in the judgment/order passed by the Courts.

Having respectfully gone through the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the firm view that in normal course, the Courts should avoid from making disparaging remarks or pass serious strictures against the officers who are performing quasi judicial functions or judicial functions as settled in Union of India vs. A.N. Saxena reported in AIR 1992 SC 1233. Unless there is an allegation of malafide against the officer performing quasi judicial work or judicial work, no disciplinary action can be taken, corollary follows that no disparaging remarks or strictures be made against such officers who are performing statutory duty. As held in Om Prakash Chotala (supra), right to reputation is an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such reputation, therefore, cannot be allowed to be damaged unless there is an allegation levelled against him alleging malice on his part in performing his quasi judicial functions or judicial functions and he is impleaded as party in the proceedings, and given a chance to rebut such allegation, it is only then that the Court would be free to make observations.

In view of the above without further devolving on the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to allow all these review petitions and expunge aforequoted para no.8 of the judgment dated 7.7.2015 with further observation that if any disciplinary action has been undertaken in terms of the aforesaid observations, the same shall also be dropped. All pending applications also stand disposed.