Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Khemariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 31 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13916 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL KHEMARIYA S/O SHRI ASHOK KHEMARIYA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O
HURJAT PULL NAYA BAZAR LASHKAR DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN KATARE - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHIND,
DISRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PAWAN SINGH RAGHUVANSHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the remark made
against the petitioner in paragraph 16 vide judgment dated 20.5.2019 passed in
ST/2069/2017 and on the basis of the finding given by Session Court , the
respondent no.3 initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner which
effect the future service career of the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned
Trial Court has passed the judgment dated 20.5.2019 in which the remark has
been passed against the erring official in the judgment in para 16 and on the
basis of such remark passed by the learned Court below the respondents
authorities have formed a committee and the said committee hold that there is
negligence of duties of the petitioner and thereafter the order dated 20.11.2019
has been passed and hold that there is negligence of duties of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no opportunity of
hearing has not been given by learned Trial Court to the petitioner before
passing the adverse remarks neither the factual position has been has been
ascertained. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment `in the matter of `K' a
Judicial officer/ reported in (2001) 3 SCC 54.
4. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of `K' a Judicial officer (supra)
has held as under with regard to procedure before passing remarks or
observations by the Court :
"Though he power to make remarks or observations is there but on
being questioned, the exercise of power must withstand judicial scrutiny on
the touchstone of following tests : (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".
5. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The
remarks contained in paras 16 of the impugned judgment Annexure P/1
dated 20.5.2019 passed in ST/2069/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Bhind
against the petitioner, shall not be read adversely against the petitioner
and shall not be treated as an adverse remark for all purposes.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
