Rajasthan High Court
Prem Bahadur Singh S/O Shri Nawab Singh ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:6370) on 7 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:6370]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5207/2021
Prem Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Nawab Singh Nirbhaya, Aged
About 47 Years, Resident Of Village 1943, New Colony Kunda,
Amer, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
07/02/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous
petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 07.09.2019
passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act and Child Right
Protection Commission Act, 2005 Cases in Sessions Case
No.60/2018 (114/2017) titled as State Vs. Jogesh whereby
adverse remarks have been passed against the petitioner and
direction has been issued to conduct disciplinary and legal
proceedings against the petitioner.
2. Facts emanating from the misc. petition are that the
petitioner was posted as SHO Police Station Kotwali, Sawai
Madhopur at the relevant point of time. Vide para Nos.67 to 72 of
the judgment dated 07.09.2019, 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
[2024:RJ-JP:6370] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5207/2021]
therefore, disciplinary and legal proceedings be initiated against
him. The para No.72 of the judgment dated 07.09.2019 reads as
under:-
72. "tgkW rd izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ih&9 iqfyl v/kh{kd] lokbZ
ek/kksiqj ds le{k 7 fnu ds foyEc ls fnukad 11-07-2017 dks is'k
fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS] rks vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fn;s x;s bl rdZ
esa dksbZ lkj ugha gS] D;ksafd dsl Mk;jh esa ihfM+rk ds firk ih-
MCYkw&12 }kjk ?kVuk dh fnukad 04-07-2017 dks nsj jkr ?kj
igqWpus ds vxys gh fnu fnukad 05-07-2017 dks Fkkukf/kdkjh]
iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh] lokbZ ek/kksiqj ds le{k yxHkx ,sls gh
rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr izLrqr fd;k x;k izkFkZuk i= layXu gS] ysfdu
bl ij Hkh uk rks dksbZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ dh xbZ Fkh] uk gh nksuksa
iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa us fnukad 14-07-2017 dks ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ
djus ls igys mDr izkFkZuk i= esa fyf[kr vkjksiks ij dksbZ tkWp
'kq: dh FkhA ;gkW rd fd izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ih&9 iqfyl v/kh{kd]
lokbZ ek/kksiqj ds dk;kZy; ls fnukad 11-07-2017 dks gh fHktok
fn;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu blds ckotwn Hkh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-izn'kZ ih&3
fnukad 14-07-2017 dks nksigj 1-10 cts yxHkx 3 fnu ds foyEc
ls ntZ dh xbZ rFkk mlh fnu /kkjk 174 n-iz-la- dh tkWp dh
fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&8 rS;kj dh xbZ] tks Hkh nksuksa iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa
dh xEHkhj izd`fr dh lnks"k ykijokgh dks n'kkZrk gS] ftlds fy;s
Hkh nksuksa iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) leqfpr vuq'kklukRed ,oa
dkuwuh dk;Zokgh vey esa yk;k tkuk vko';d gSA "
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
[2024:RJ-JP:6370] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5207/2021]
matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an
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 /54
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
