ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for following relief:

“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the adverse remark made in the judgment Annexure P/1 in Session Case No. 100375/2015 dated 15.7,2022 in para 36 and 59 may kindly be directed to be expunged.

(iii) That, the cost of the litigation may also be awarded.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was holding the post of Inspector and was posted at Gohad, District Bhind. He was the investigating officer in relation to Crime No.110/2015 registered at the said Police Station for offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 294, 323, 325, 307, 302 read with section 149 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act. After investigation, the matter was tried by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Sessions Case No.100375 of 2015 and was finally decided vide judgment, dated 15.7.2022 (Annexure P/1). The accused persons were convicted and sentenced vide said judgment.

3. The petitioner, being the investigation officer of the case, was examined as PW-19 in the aforesaid case. The learned Trial Judge, in para 36 of the judgment, found certain lapses on the part of petitioner during investigation. The finding recorded by learned Trial Judge in para 36 are as under:

^^36 lquhy [ksefj;k vŒlŒ 19 us vius çfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk 18 esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vfÒ;qä rqykjke }kjk tCr djkà xà ykBh] ftls tCrh i=d çŒiŒ 6 d¢ vuqlkj tCr fd;k x;k gS ij [kwu yxs g¨us dk mYys[k ugÈ gS v©j e©d¢ ij lhycan fd, tkus dk Òh mYys[k ugÈ gSA bl lk{kh us dafMdk 19 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd foospuk d¢ n©jku mls Qfj;knh odhy flag] Äk;y eqUus'k] jkeoju o vU; lk{khx.k us fdlh Òh vfÒ;qä d¢ }kjk dV~Vk ç;¨x djuk o g¨uk ugÈ crk;k Fkk] ysfdu çdj.k dh foospuk esa vfÒ;qä Òku flag ls 315 c¨j dk dV~Vk tCrh i=d çŒçŒ 21 d¢ vuqlkj tCr fd;k x;k gSA mä ykijokgh vuqlaèkku dh dk;Zokgh esa Ĩj ykijokgh gS v©j bl Ĩj ykijokgh d¢ fy, Fkkuk çÒkjh lquhy [kSfefj;k] t¨ fd ,d vuqÒoh deZpkjh Fks v©j mud¢ }kjk gh vfÒ;qä Òku flag d¨ fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu mud¢ }kjk tkucw>dj Òku flag ls ÄVuk esa ç;qä 315 c¨j dh ekmtj canwd d¨ tCr u djrs gq, vius vèkhuLFk mifujh{kd tt flag ;kno d¢ çdj.k dh foospuk dqN le; d¢ fy, nsdj tkucw>dj vfÒ;qä Òku flag ls 315 c¨j dk ns'kh dV~Vk tCr djk;k x;k gS tcfd foospuk vfèkdkjh lquhy [kSefj;k d¨ bl rF; dk Kku Fkk fd ÄVuk esa d¨Ã Òh 315 c¨j d¢ ns'kh dV~VBs dk mi;¨x ugÈ gqvk gSA**

4. Based upon the aforesaid finding, the learned Trial Judge, in para 59 of the judgment, forwarded a copy of judgment to Inspector General of Police with direction to punish him for the said lapses and inform the Court. Para 59 of the judgment reads as under:

^^59- çdj.k esa vuqlaèkku d¢ n©jku foospuk vfèkdkjh lquhy [kSefj;k vŒlŒ 19 rRdkyhu fujh{kd Fkkuk x¨gn }kjk cjrh xà Ĩj ykijokgh] ftls fu.kZ; dh dafMdk& 36 esa mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS d¢ lacaèk esa foospuk esa cjrh xà Ĩj ykijokgh d¢ fy, nafMr djrs gq, bl U;k;ky; d¨ lwfpr fd, tkus gsrq fu.kZ; dh çfr iqfyl egkfujh{kd] pacy jSat Xokfy;j d¢ i= d¢ lkFk fu.kZ; dh çfr çsf"kr dh tk,A^^

5. It is gathered from the return filed by respondents that in compliance with the directions issued by learned trial Court, S.P. Bhind conducted a preliminary enquiry through SDOP Gohad wherein the negligence was found to have been committed by the petitioner. Based upon the preliminary enquiry report, a charge sheet was issued to petitioner vide memo, dated 25.7.2024, (Annexure R/1). Pertinently, alongwith petitioner, the joint enquiry was commenced against one Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Sub-Inspector posted in Gohad Police Station at the time of incident. It is stated in the return that the charge sheet was served to petitioner on 17.8.2024. The enquiry was pending at the stage of reply to charge sheet by petitioner.

6. Challenging the remarks made by learned Trial