ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the remark made against the petitioner in paragraph 16 vide judgment dated 20.5.2019 passed in ST/2069/2017 and on the basis of the finding given by Session Court , the respondent no.3 initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner which effect the future service career of the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has passed the judgment dated 20.5.2019 in which the remark has been passed against the erring official in the judgment in para 16 and on the basis of such remark passed by the learned Court below the respondents authorities have formed a committee and the said committee hold that there is negligence of duties of the petitioner and thereafter the order dated 20.11.2019 has been passed and hold that there is negligence of duties of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no opportunity of hearing has not been given by learned Trial Court to the petitioner before passing the adverse remarks neither the factual position has been has been ascertained. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment ` in the matter of `K' a Judicial officer/ reported in (2001) 3 SCC 54.

4. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of `K' a Judicial officer (supra) has held as under with regard to procedure before passing remarks or observations by the Court :

"Though he power to make remarks or observations is there but on being questioned, the exercise of power must withstand judicial scrutiny on the touchstone of following tests : (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. The overall test is that the criticism or observation must be judicial in nature and should not formally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve".

5. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The remarks contained in paras 16 of the impugned judgment Annexure P/1 dated 20.5.2019 passed in ST/2069/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Bhind against the petitioner, shall not be read adversely against the petitioner and shall not be treated as an adverse remark for all purposes. (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr)