C482/619/2016 of Rajendra Prasad Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

They were registered as Sessions Trial Nos. 10 of 2015 and 11 of 2015, respectively, and decided by common judgment dated 16.05.2016 by the learned Sessions Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is serving as Sub-Inspector in the Uttarakhand Police Department. The learned Sessions Judge, in paragraph nos. 90 to 92 of the judgment dated 16.05.2016, made adverse observations against the applicant, stating that he had committed deliberate dereliction of duty while conducting the investigation and had filed charge sheets contrary to the evidence on record. In paragraph 91, the court further noted that the Investigating Officer had acted in deliberate violation of duty and, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dayal Singh v. Union of India, directed the Director General of Police, Government of Uttarakhand, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and punish him with intimation to the court.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that such observations and directions go beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and constitute an impermissible interference in the domain of the disciplinary authority. It is submitted that such actions amount to judicial overreach and are wholly unwarranted in law. It is further argued that the applicant was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before such castigating remarks and directions were made, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram partem.

8. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Balbir Singh, Inspector v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another [2024 SCC OnLine Del 2133], where it was held that directions to initiate disciplinary action without affording an opportunity of hearing are impermissible and such remarks may adversely affect the career of public servant. The court emphasized judicial restraint and cautioned against overstepping judicial discretion.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State (NCT

2025:UHC:5515

of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Others, (2019) 11 SCC 575, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that disparaging remarks or directions for disciplinary action affecting the service career of an individual should not be made without providing them an opportunity of being heard. 10. Learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the application and would submit that the charge sheet materials suggest that the applicant had manipulated the investigation and, therefore, the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge were justified. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. Perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned Sessions Judge made serious observations against the applicant in paragraphs 90 to 92 without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that such remarks should not be made without affording the concerned person an opportunity to defend themselves, especially where such remarks may adversely impact their service career. It is further apparent that the observations and directions made by the trial court in paragraphs 90 to 92 of the judgment dated 16.05.2016 are beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to settled legal principles. 13. Accordingly, this Court finds it appropriate to expunge paragraphs 90 to 92 of the common judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), District Almora in Sessions Trial Nos. 10 and 11 of 2015, insofar as they pertain to the applicant. Accordingly, the paragraph nos.90 to 92 of the common judgment dated 16.05.2016 are hereby expunged. 14. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Mamta

(Alok Mahra, J.)

26.06.2025

2025:UHC:5515