1. With consent heard finally.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking expunction of the remarks made in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Mandla in Special Case No. 94/2003.

3. The petitioner is working on the post of Forest Ranger in the Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. On 7.8.2003 he lodged a First Information Report against two persons namely Dilip Giri and Sanjay Kumar. After registration of the FIR the police investigated the same as crime No. 126/2003. The police submitted challan for offence under section 294 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the said persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Special Judge for trial. .

4. After recording the evidence the Special Judge, Mandla vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons holding them to be not guilty of the alleged offence. However, the Special Judge while passing the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons made observations in paragraph 9 of the judgment against the petitioner holding him to be corrupt, irresponsible and a person of doubtful integrity. The learned Special Judge also directed the respondents not to act in future upon the report of the petitioner unless the report made by him is verified. It was also directed to the respondents to keep strict vigil on the petitioner's work and he be not entrusted any responsible work. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. The petitioner contends that the trial Court has committed gross error in declaring the petitioner to be corrupt and irresponsible Officer. The observations affecting his reputation without giving him an opportunity of being heard are absolutely uncalled for and may be quashed.

6. The respondents contend that the first information report lodged by the petitioner having found to be not proved the trial Court has rightly passed strictures 'against the petitioner.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment of the trial Court, in my considered view, the observations/strictures made by the trial Court against the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment are wholly unwarranted and cannot be sustained.

8. In case of State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and others [(2003) 8 SCC 361] and in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and others [2007 AIR SCW 474] it has been held that a person whose conduct is being inquired into or who is likely to be prejudicially affected is required to be heard and notice to such person is a sine qua non of the principles of natural justice.

9. The trial Court was not right in passing strictures and making such uncalled for observations against the petitioner which are likely to affect his career and reputation without giving opportunity to him of being heard. The order of the learned trial Judge as contained in paragraph 9 of it is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The strictures have been passed against the petitioner affecting his reputation and service carrier behind his back without following the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice.

10. In the circumstances, the observations/strictures, remarks made as also the direction given by the trial Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment being totally unwarranted and uncalled for deserves to be and are hereby expunged.

11. The petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.