LexPRAKASH SINGH TEJI versus NORTHERN INDIA GOODS TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 278 ' ..._ A PRAKASH SINGH TEJI v. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2586-2587 of 2009) B APRIL 16, 2009 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Judiciary - Higher judiciary - Adverse remarks - Expunction of - Adverse remarks against judicial officer by c High Court while remanding the case - Direction to place judgment in personal1service record of judicial officer and also before Inspecting Judge for perusal - Subsequently, ACR of B+ downgraded to B - Justification of - Held: Remarks and directions not justified - Judicial restraint and discipline are D necessary to the orderly administration of justice - There should be a quality of restraint, humility in decision making - Direction of High Court without giving opportunity to the Judicial Officer would affect his career - More so, Judicial officer's ACR from 2000 to 2006 was consistently graded as E B+ ~ He was promoted to super-time scale and recently made Designated Judge, NDPS - In the interest of justice and fairness, offending remarks against Judicial Officer are expunged - Service law - Judicial restraint - Judicial discipline. ... F Judicial discipline - Adverse remarks against judicial officer- To be avoided particularly if officer has no occasion to put forth his reasonings - Harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless G it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof. Appellant-Judicial Officer dismissed the suit for recovery since the plaintiff failed to lead evidence despite H 278 PRAKASH SINGH TEJI v. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS 279 TRANSP. CO. LTD. & ANR. \ sufficient opportunities given to him. In appeal, High A Court while remanding the case to the trial court, passed ._-;. adverse remarks against the appellant and issued directions for placing the said judgment in the personal/ service record of the appellant and also before the Inspecting Judge for its perusal. Thereafter, High Court B disposed of the application for expunction of remarks stating that the remarks are corrective in nature and did not suggest any lack of integrity on part of the officer. Subsequently ACR of the appellant was downgraded from B+ (which was given to him for past seven years) c to B. The representation against the same was also rejected. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court Held:1.1. As per the appellant, by making the remarks D behind his back, the High Court failed to appreciate certain relevant facts. The suit which was decided by the appellant on 19.12.2005 was filed in the year 1984 and the plaintiff was g.iven sufficient opportunities to lead evidence. The evidence which the plaintiff had already E lead when the suit was pending in the Delhi High Court was in fact tagged with the order sheet and the documents on which the plaintiff was relying were not even exhibited. In view of this the mistake occurred was ... neither deliberate nor intentional. It was also highlighted F that the deposition of witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 was not arranged properly in the file and the same were not . traceable. Insofar as evidence of P.W.3 is concerned, according to the appellant, no order sheet reflects that the evidence was actually recorded on 15.04.1991. It was G highlighted that the High Court failed to appreciate that the statement of P .Ws was attached with the order sheet and it was not arranged or placed where it should have been placed as per Rules 8 and 9 of the Delhi High Court H 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A (Original Side) Rules, 1967. Appellant also highlighted that his ACR from 2000 to 2006 has been consistently graded as B+ and he was also promoted by the High Court to the Super··time Scale and recently assigned with much more responsibility and onerous task of presiding as a B Designated Judge/Special Judge, NDPS. [Paras 8 and 9) [285-F, G, H; 286-A-D] 1.2. In the facts and circumstances and the materials available, the remarks/observations and the directions made in para 10 of the order dated 06.07.2006 are not C warranted. Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectives of the army. The duty of a restraint, humility should be constant theme of the Judges. This quality in dec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.