Natural justice mandates that individuals must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before the court issues adverse remarks that could impact their professional future.

ORDER :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 29.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.63/2018 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Tejraj @ Teju @ Tejraj Nagar & Ors. whereby while acquitting the respondents, adverse remarks have been passed against the petitioner and direction has been issued to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under Order 35 Rule 6 of the General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar at the relevant point of time. Vide para No.86 of the judgment dated 29.04.2023, it has been held that in the discharge of the official duties of a public servant, the petitioner has committed irregularities in a seriously irresponsible manner therefore, disciplinary and legal proceedings be initiated against him. The para No.86 of the judgment dated 29.04.2023 reads as under:-

86- yksd lsod ds inh; drZO; ds fuoZgu esa MkW0 HkkLdj fc’uksbZ o vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh foeyflag }kjk xaHkhj :i ls xSj ftEesnkj rjhds ls vfu;fer dk;Z laiknu fd;k x;k gS ftlds lanHkZ esa ftyk eftLVªsV o iqfyl egkfujh{kd dks lkekU; fu;e flfoy o nkafMd 2018 ds vkns’k 35 fu;e 6 es tfj;s i`Fkd &i`Fkd i= voxr djkok;k tkos vkSj i= ij fof/kvuqlkj dh tkus okyh dk;Zokgh ls U;k;ky; dks vfoyac lwfpr fd;s tkus dh rkdhn dh tkosA

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 of issuing direction/remarks against him for initiating disciplinary as well as legal proceedings, 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 ensure 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 opportunity is the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme 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. This case presents a further issue for this Court's consideration. The impugned order and the adverse remarks recorded by the learned Judge also extend to another individual namely Dr. Bhaskar Bishnoi, who has not approached this Court assailing the remarks passed by the learned subordinate court. Simply, this means that the castigating remarks passed by the learned Court also included remarks against this individual and this individual also wasn’t provided an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, he stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner.

8. Just because he has not raised a petition to get the castigating remarks expunged, like that presented by the current petitioner, it cannot be said that the castigating remarks passed by the learned Court specifically against him are correct. Following the principle of parity, when a court finds that a specific action suffers from a