Court expunges adverse remarks, quashes show-cause notice, upholding natural justice.

The court allowed the writ petition, expunging adverse remarks made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment and quashing the show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) based on those remarks. The court held that the remarks were unnecessary and unjustified, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the notice and any proceedings against the petitioner were invalidated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Expunction of adverse remarks made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Validity of the show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) based on those remarks.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Expunction of Adverse Remarks:

The petitioner sought the expunction of certain disparaging remarks made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment dated 09.12.2014. These remarks criticized the petitioner for not conducting a just, fair, and proper investigation and suggested that the petitioner attempted to protect the accused. The petitioner argued that these remarks were made without affording him an opportunity to explain or defend himself, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that these remarks were unnecessary for the decision of the case and caused serious prejudice to his reputation and career.

The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments to establish the principles for expunging adverse remarks. Key judgments included *The State U.P. v. Mohammad Naim* (AIR 1964 SC 703), which stated that the High Court can expunge remarks to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice, but only in exceptional cases. The Supreme Court laid down three tests for expunction: whether the party had an opportunity to explain, whether there was evidence justifying the remarks, and whether the remarks were necessary for the decision of the case.

The court also cited *Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar* (AIR 1964 SC 1), which emphasized the duty of judges not to make irrelevant remarks, and *Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar* (1986) 2 SCC 569, which held that harsh or disparaging remarks should not be made unless necessary for the case's decision.

Applying these principles, the court found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances noted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The remarks were neither necessary nor justifiable for the case's decision, as the accused were convicted for the charged offenses. Therefore, the remarks breached the tests laid down in *Mohammad Naim* and were in violation of the principles established in *A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta* (1990) 2 SCC 533. Consequently, the court decided that the offending remarks deserved to be expunged.

2. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice:

The show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) on 16.09.2015, which relied on the adverse remarks, was also challenged. The petitioner argued that this notice, which proposed departmental action, was based on the unjust and undeserving remarks made by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Given that the adverse remarks were expunged, the basis for the show-cause notice was invalidated. The court held that the show-cause notice and any subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were to be quashed as a necessary corollary to the expunction of the remarks.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was allowed, and the adverse remarks made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in paragraphs 32, 35, and 37 of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 21/2014 were expunged. Consequently, the show-cause notice dated 16.09.2015 and any subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. The petition was allowed without imposing any costs.

---