Ajai Lamba, J.

1. The question posed before this Court for determination is whether it is correct, proper and legal for a trial Court to hear arguments, prepare and sign a judgment and put it in a sealed cover, in view of transfer of Presiding Officer, to be pronounced by the successor Presiding Officer, in case an accused, despite summoning, does not appear before it ?

2. Challenge in this petition is to order passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, dated 30.5.2008, which reads as under :-

"Smt. Bharti Arora, S.P., is again not present in person in spite of opportunities given to her for personal hearing. Neither she is present nor any application for exemption has been moved on her behalf. DSP Ram Phal is also not present and no application for his exemption has been moved. Record shows that a number of times opportunities were granted to Smt. Bharti Arora S.P. to appear in person for her personal hearing, but not even once she has appeared, which shows that neither she wants to avail any opportunity of personal hearing nor wants to appear in person before the Court. No person is above law. Since Smt. Bharti Arora SP fails to appear in person and also to avail opportunity of hearing, I proceed to pronounce the order in the case, as the arguments have already been heard. Before the order could be pronounced, learned Counsel for Smt. Bharti Arora SP has raised objection that in sensitive matters, order should not be pronounced after receipt of transfer orders by the Officer. It is true that transfer orders have been received by me. It is worthwhile to point it out here that after dismissal of revision petition before the Honble High Court moved by Smt. Bharti Arora, SP, the next date fixed before this Honble Court was 20.05.2008 on which date learned Counsel were told to come prepared with arguments on 22.05.2008. Arguments were duly advanced by all the three Counsel and the case was adjourned to 24.5.2008 for orders. Since Smt. Bharti Arora, SP did not appear in person, she wanted personal hearing which was granted to her for 27.5.2008, 28.05.2008, 29.5.2008 and even for today i.e. 30.05.2008. Every time, application for exemption was moved. No instructions of Honble High Court have been shown by Sh. J.S. Virk, Advocate, vide which any Officer has been directed not to pass any order after receipt of transfer orders. The Officer or the Court does not become functus officio as the day-to-day Court work is going on and I would relinquish the charge on 2.6.2008. It is worthwhile to mention here that arguments have already been advanced and the case was also fixed for orders. It is also important to mention here that order has already been dictated and typed. To avoid any lapse on my part, I put the signed order in sealed cover. Since learned Counsel has objected not to pronounce the order, I refrain myself from doing so. Hence, it is hereby ordered that the order in the case signed by me be put in a sealed cover and placed on the main file. Now adjourned to 4.6.2008 for appearance of Smt. Bharti Arora SP, Ramphal DSP and Ram Kumar, retired Inspector and for further proceedings. Sd/- (Sarita Gupta) Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra 30.05.2008"

3. At the point in time when the incident took place culminating in passing of the impugned order, the petitioner, an Indian Police Service Officer, was posted as Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra (Haryana).

4. The brief facts and circumstances of the case, which led to passing of the impugned order, are required to be noticed before the legal issue is dealt with. The brief facts and circumstances of the case emanating from the record, including the record summoned by this Court (received on 30.6.2010), are as under :-

5. It seems that on 6.1.2005, Inspector Ram Kumar, along with Police Officials, was present at `T point in Village Masana on G.T. Road, District Kurukshetra (Haryana) in a Government vehicle, in connection with patrolling and crime