Rajasthan High Court
Gopal Ram, The Then Sub Inspector At ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ... on 27 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:11012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 780/2018
Gopal Ram, The Then Sub Inspector At Police Station Manak
Chowk, Jaipur, Presently Posted At Office Of Assistant
Commissioner Of Police, Theft And Burglary, Commissionerate,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP, Jaipur
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarter, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur North, Jaipur
4. Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Manak Chowk, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Sharma for
Mr. Sudhir Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
27/02/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous
petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.04.2018
passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.5, Jaipur
Mahanagar Cases in Session Case No.11/2014 titled as State Vs.
Vishnu Devnath whereby adverse remarks have been passed
against the petitioner and direction has been issued to the
Director General of Police to initiate action against petitioner under
Rule 66 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1980.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Manak Chowk,
[2024:RJ-JP:11012] (2 of 3) [CRLW-780/2018]
Jaipur at the relevant point of time. Vide para No.15 of the
judgment dated 30.04.2018, it has been held that the petitioner
had committed gross negligence in discharge of his duties which
amounts to dereliction of duties on his part and therefore,
disciplinary and legal proceedings be initiated against him. The
para No.15 of the judgment dated 30.04.2018 reads as under:-
15. "i=okyh ij ekStwn leLr lk{; ls ;g izdV gqvk gS fd
vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh xksiky jke }kjk iwoZ esa izdj.k ntZ gksus ls iwoZ
izkjafHkd tkWp dh xbZ gS vkSj izdj.k ntZ djus ds i'pkr vuqla/kku Hkh
mUgh ds }kjk fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq nkSjkus vuqla/kku fo"kkDr inkFkZ ^ikjk*
dgkW ls yk;k x;k] fdl txg ij feBkbZ esa feyk;k x;k] feBkbZ fdl
LFkku ls Ø; dh xbZ] bR;kfn rF;ksa ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vuqla/kku ugha
fd;k rFkk izlUuthr ds dFku rd ys[kc) ugha fd;s tkdj vuqla/kku
dh dk;Zokgh esa ?kksj ykijokghiw.kZ d`R; fd;k x;k gSA vr% vuqla/kku
vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vuqla/kku esa cjrh xbZ ykijokgh ds lEcU/k esa
vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq fu;e 66 lkekU; fu;e nkf.Md ds rgr]
fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr iqfyl egkfuns'kd] jktLFkku dks izsf"kr dh tkdj
funsZ'k gS] fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vko';d dk;Zokgh dj
U;k;ky; dks lwfpr djsaA"
3. The petitioner has taken a plea that he was not afforded
opportunity of hearing before making such adverse remarks vide
the impugned judgment and thus, the impugned judgment to the
extent the direction for initiating disciplinary as well as legal
proceedings has been given, is in violation of the principle of
natural justice.
4. I have perused the judgment.
5. In the case of "Manish Dixit & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan"
reported in 2001,Volume 1, SCC 596, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that before any castigating remarks are made by the court
against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue
serious consequences on the future career of the person
concerned, he should be given an opportunity of hearing in the
matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an
[2024:RJ-JP:11012] (3 of 3) [CRLW-780/2018]
opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending
remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned the Courts from
passing castigating remarks against any person, particularly when
such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future
career of the person concerned.
7. In light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in "Manish
Dixit & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan" (supra) the impugned order to
the extent that it makes castigating remarks against the petitioner
and the direction issued therein, to initiate disciplinary and legal
proceedings against the petitioner is set-aside.
8. The present criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly
allowed.
9. Stay application stands disposed of.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
CHARU SONI /58
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
