Sanjeev Dubey vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—Since these petitions involve similar question of facts and law, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

Facts are taken from W.P. No. 4938/12.

The petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind passed in Case No. 172/2007 dated 10.5.2012 in as much as the said Court in para 19 of the judgment gave certain findings against the petitioner. The common ground in all the petitions is that the Court below has passed remarks, gave findings and directed disciplinary action against the petitioner without hearing him. The show cause notice Annexure P-2 dated 6.8.2012 is also called in question on the ground that it is a consequential action based on the findings of the Court (Annexure P-1).

Shri Arun Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on S.K. Viswambaran Vs. E. Koyakunju and Others, , In the Matter of: K, a Judicial Officer, , 2008 (3) M.P.W.N. SN 30 (reported in toto) (Randhir Singh Rahul (Dr.) Vs. State of M.P. and the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No. 89/2002 (Ram Babu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Others) decided on 5.9.2006. On the strength of the said judgment, it is contended that before making remarks/observations against an officer, the following tests need to be satisfied:-

(a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. The overall test is that the criticism or observation must be judicial in nature and should not formally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these tests are not satisfied and, therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Per contra, Mrs. Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that Annexure P-2 is on a show cause notice and it is open to the petitioner to submit his reply and take all possible grounds. By relying on Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, , it is contended that no interference at this stage is warranted by this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A bare perusal of the judgments cited by the petitioners makes it clear that the test laid down in "K" a Judicial Officer''s case needs to be satisfied. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the criminal litigation, nor he was heard before recording remarks against him. This Court for the said reason, in Ram Babu Sharma (supra) expunged the remarks made by the Judicial Officer against the employee. I am in agreement with the view taken by this Court.

Resultantly, the impugned remarks against the petitioners made by the Courts shall be treated as expunged.

The petitioners have also challenged the show cause notices issued by the department on the basis of the stricture/remarks of the Court. In the opinion of this Court, a bare perusal of Annexure P-2 dated 6.6.2012 in W.P. No. 4938/12 shows that the show cause notice is issued only on the basis of the remarks made by the Court below. Since remarks are expunged by this Court, I find no reason to permit Annexure P-2 to stand.

Consequently, the impugned show cause notice is set aside. However, it is made clear that if the competent authority dispassionately without getting influenced on the expunged remarks comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed any misconduct, irregularity etc., it will be open for the said authority to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.