Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Kumar ... vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1646 Jhar

                                   1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Revision No. 85 of 2022
Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Kumar Choudhary @ Rohit Yadav
                                           ...... Petitioner
                       Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Ramesh Ravidas                       .......        Opp. Parties
                       ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner     : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P
For the Informant      : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
                       -----------
              th
09/Dated: 19 April, 2023

1. This case was called in first half twice but none appeared on behalf of the informant although learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P for the State were present and hence the matter has been fixed in second half at 2.15 p.m.

2. Perused the report submitted by the learned Registrar General and the explanation submitted by Joint Registrar (Judicial).

3. Although the learned Joint Registrar Judicial has tendered unqualified apology, however, the explanation furnished by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) is not satisfactory. The Joint Registrar (Judicial) has failed to properly address the Court and he has filed explanation directly before this Court although it should have been filed through the learned Registrar General.

Apart from this Joint Registrar (Judicial) has submitted that as per precedence he has marked the file to the Supreme Court Appeal Section on 16.03.2023 and thereafter it was sent to Criminal Revision Section on 16.03.2023.

4. It has been also stated that the file was earlier endorsed to one Sumit Samad of Criminal Revision Section on 16.03.2023 and thereafter it was sent to Criminal Disposal Section where it was assigned to Mrs. Sunila Kujur, Assistant and she was on leave from 21.03.2023 to 25.03.2023 and therefore, she received the file on 28.03.2023 and then it was placed before this Court by Mrs. Tanvee, Assistant Registrar-II.

5. On the one hand he has tried to save the Section Officers and Assistant Registrars of the concerned Sections where the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was placed and on the other hand he has named several staffs namely Sumit Samad of Criminal Revision Section, Sunila

Kujur, Assistant, Criminal Disposal Section for causing delay. It is surprising that in absence of the above staffs and due to their busy schedule why the file could not be placed when Section Officers and Assistant Registrars have also been posted to supervise the Sections. This shows complete inefficiency and negligence on the part of learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).

6. This Court is aware of the judgment of the Apex Court that remarks should not be made against the Judicial Officers. However, this is one of those rare cases in which this Court is compelled to pass order after noticing the conduct of the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) as he appears to have done the work in violation of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 and instead of taking proper steps, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) is trying to shift his responsibility upon the other staffs of the Section without discharging his own responsibilities.

7. As per Rule 31 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001, Joint Registrar (Judicial) has been made In-charge of the Accounts General Department of the Court, Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the Court and compliance of Judicial Orders and supervising the Judicial Sections of the Court.

8. The explanation furnished by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) shows that he is working on the Precedence and not in the light of Rule 31 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 which shows that the duty is cast upon the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) to place the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. Thus, it is incumbent upon the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) to secure compliance of the judicial orders received from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10. The office of the learned Registrar General has submitted that on 04.03.2023 at 03.03 P.M., a mail has been received from the Branch Officer, Section IIA, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through email ID [email protected] in which soft copy of letter dated 4th March 2023 (D.No.32007/2022/SEC-IIA) along with certified copy of signed order dated 01.03.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.690 of 2023 was attached but the print out of the same could not taken on the same day due to technical glitch of the internet. It is further submitted that the Court remains closed for next eight days commencing from 05.03.2023 (Sunday) to 12.03.2023 on the

occasion of Holi festival. On the opening of the Court on 13.03.2023 the office has reported that the internet remains non functional due to the same technical problem. Hence all emails received during the period could not be processed on 13.03.2023. But later on after resumption of the internet service on 14.03.2023 all emails delivered were placed before the learned Registrar General for endorsement. The aforesaid email dated 04.03.2023 was endorsed to learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of the Court for further compliance.

11. The staffs of the offices of learned Registrar General and the Joint Registrar (Judicial) appear to be inefficient and negligent and it require proper staffs to monitor the Judicial Sections of the Court. However, since it is prerogative of the Court's Administration to place any staff before any office, however, this Court refrains itself from giving any comment, but the conduct of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) and the officers subordinate to him are not at all appreciated by this Court.

12. It appears that the learned Registrar General and learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) are trying to save the Assistants, Section officers and Assistant Registrars (Non-Judicial) where the order of Supreme Court was placed and all the duties and responsibilities were fixed upon the Assistants/Clerks only but not upon the Section Officers and Assistant Registrars (Non-Judicial) of the concerned Sections where the file remained pending for more than fourteen (14) days although it was the duty of Section Officers/Assistant Registrars to arrange the work in absence of any Assistant/Staff for smooth functioning of the Court. All the concerned Section Officers and Assistant Registrars have been left without assigning/fixing any responsibility upon them. It appears that instead of learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) Assistants/Clerks are running the Sections. Even on earlier occasions also similar plea of technical glitch of the internet was taken by the office of the learned Registrar General.

13. The conduct of P.A concerned Raja Babu is derogatory in nature and he has filed explanation to the effect that he had given order dated 14.07.2022 in the chamber of the Judge on 15.07.2022 and which was received by him on 10.02.2023. This conduct shows complete negligence and dereliction of duty on his part and shows him as an emboldened person and for which strict disciplinary proceeding be initiated and he is not fit to work as a Personal Assistant of the Court. Moreover, he has tried to say that

file came to him on 10.02.2023 and he uploaded the order immediately in one file being Cr. Revision No.279 of 2022 but due to human error, the rejection order left to be ticked out for uploading second file in Cr. Revision No.85 of 2022. It is the duty of the concerned Personal Assistant to himself obtain the signed copy of any order granting/rejecting the bail/or any important order immediately.

14. Although Mr. Mukund Verma has also tendered unqualified apology but even the explanation submitted by Mr. Mukund Verma, In-charge, P.A Section is also not satisfactory. It is surprising that he is taking the name of Hon'ble the Chief Justice apart from learned Registrar General for attaching the Secretaries and Personal Assistants in the Court of the Judge which is also deplorable and shows his inefficiency on the part of the P.A (In-charge) and he appears to be an emboldened person by taking the name of 'Head of the Institution'.

15. Under the circumstances, let a copy of this order be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the Administrative side by the learned Registrar General.

Later on Dated:19.04.2023

16. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has concluded his argument. The learned A.P.P has also argued the case in part.

17. On the request of Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P and Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the informant, put up this case tomorrow i.e. 20.04.2023 for further argument at 11.30 a.m.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-