P.K. Shastri
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [1999] INSC 282 (19 August 1999)
M.Jagannadha
Rao, N.Santosh Hegde SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
Leave
granted.
Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
In
this appeal, the appellant has challenged before us that part of the order of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the learned Judge had
"directed that an entry be made in the C.R. of the Presiding Officer that
he has no control over the proceedings of the court in as much as he permits
the prosecutor to leave several times during the court hours, as a result, the
work suffers as pointed out by him in his explanation dated 12.3.98. Let copy
of this order be sent to the Registrar General, for making an entry in the C.R.
of the Presiding Officer." The brief facts necessary for considering this
appeal are as follows :
While
disposing of a bail application, the High Court on 26.9.1997 directed that the
Trial Court at Datia before which Session Trial No.91/95 was pending, should
dispose of the said case within 4 months from the date of receipt of the
records of the case. Since the said direction was not complied with by the
appellant who was the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court at that time, the
High Court as per its order dated 6.3.1998 called for an explanation from the
appellant; more particularly, as to why the appellant as the Presiding Officer,
had adjourned the case on 20.10.1997 and why he allowed the Additional Public
Prosecutor to leave the court on 14.1.1998. The said order also specifically
directed the appellant to submit his explanation as to why the Sessions Trial
was not concluded within 4 months as per the directions issued by the order of
the High Court on 26.9.1997.
The
appellant submitted his explanation on 12.3.1998 wherein he explained in detail
as to what steps were being taken for disposal of the sessions case and how he
was handicapped by non-appearance of the witnesses whose presence had to be
secured through warrants every time. He assured the High Court that all
possible efforts will be made to finalise the proceedings as soon as possible.
In regard to the query made as to the non-appearance of the Additional Public
Prosecutor, he submitted that the said officer was not under his supervisory
control and that the Additional Public Prosecutor was, at the relevant time,
was also performing the duties of Additional Director in the Office of the
District Prosecution Branch in addition to his own duty as Additional Public
Prosecutor, therefore, whenever he is summoned by the Superintendent of Police
of the District, he had to obey the said summons, for all these reasons, at
times, adjournments became inevitable. In support of his explanation that
reasonable steps were being taken by him to comply with the directions issued
by the High Court, the appellant along with his explanation enclosed the
order-sheet of the concerned case. However, t he High Court was not satisfied
with this explanation and was pleased to pass an order which is h ereinabove. i
mpugned in this appeal, as referred to by us We have carefully considered the
explanation given by the appellant.
While
appreciating the anxiety of the High Court for quick disposal of criminal cases
more so in cases where the accused persons are in custody, we feel, in the
instant case, the appellant had shown reasonable cause for not being able to
comply with the direction of the High Court. The appellant appears to have had
some real difficulty in securing the presence of witnesses and the defence also
contributed its share in the delay of the proceeding, added by the fact that
the Additional Public Prosecutor was saddled with additional responsibilities
and had to be away from the court in that connection.
However,
we consider that despite the handicaps mentioned above, it would have been more
prudent and appropriate for him to have made a proper application to the High
Court for extension of time to enable him to comply with the directions of the
High Court. Be that as it may, we think that the C.Rs. of an Officer are
basically the performance appraisal of the said Officer and go to constitute
vital service record in relation to his career advancement. Any adverse remark
in the C.Rs. could mar the entire career of that Officer. Therefore, it is
necessary that in the event of a remark being called for in the Confidential
Records, the authority directing such remark must first come to the conclusion
that the fact- situation is such that it is imperative to make such remarks to
set right the wrong committed by the Officer concerned. A decision in this
regard must be taken objectively after careful consideration of all the
materials which are before the authority directing the remarks being entered in
the C.Rs. In the instant case, the High Court has rested its opinion in regard
to the efficiency of the Officer based on the fact- situation of a single case
and that too with reference to the capacity of the Officer concerned to control
the proceedings of the court. There was no material before the High Court that
this was the case with the concerned Sessions Judge in other cases also nor
does the lacuna pointed out by the High Court appear to be such as would
undermine the administration of justice.
On
taking a holistic view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the direction
issued by the High Court, which is impugned in this appeal, should be set
aside.
Accordingly,
this appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned direction issued by the High
Court on 3.4.1998.
Back