TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment and final orders of the High Court of Delhi dated 06.07.2006 and 23.03.2007 in R.F.A. No. 178 of 2006 and in C.M. No. 13584 of 2006 in R.F.A. No. 178 of 2006 respectively whereby the High Court declined to expunge the adverse remarks made against the appellant. The appellant, who is a Judicial Officer, is now challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2006 of the High Court to the limited extent whereby the Division Bench passed certain adverse remarks against him. 3. The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder: (a) The appellant, who is a Member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, posted as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, was tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e year 2006 was communicated to him on 21.08.2007. On the basis of his service record w.e.f. 12.09.2007 he had assigned much more responsible and onerous task of presiding as a Designated Judge/Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for conducting the trial of NDPS cases. The High Court, vide letter dated 01.08.2008, has communicated to the appellant the ACR for the year 2007 which has been downgraded from B+ to B. Therefore, he submitted his representation to the High Court for review of the said ACR. He reliably came to know that the said ACR has been downgraded on the basis of the remarks in the judgment dated 06.07.2006 passed in R.F.A. No. 178 of 2006. To the best knowledge of the appellant, there is no report or complaint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d nil made by one Shri G.S. Gorkal, the Committee of Hon'ble Inspecting Judges for the year 2008 ordered that the same may be considered at the time of awarding ACR grading. The appellant had made representation dated 19.08.2008 for review of Grade B for the year 2007. The said representation was duly considered and rejected by a decision dated 01.09.2008 of the Full Court and the same was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 22.09.2008. 5. We heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, High Court of Delhi. 6. The questions which arise for consideration are: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even exhibited. According to the appellant, in view of this the mistake occurred was neither deliberate nor intentional. It was also highlighted 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 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 (Original Side) Rules, 1967. 9. Apart from the above explanation with reference to the alleged la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides for appeals and revisions. A Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity, however, sometimes is likely to err. It has to be noted that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure. They do not have the benefits which are available in the higher courts. In those circumstances, remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put forth his reasonings. 12. In the matter of: 'K' A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54, it was held that any passage from an order or judgment may be expunged or directed to be expunged subject to satisfying the following....