AMARDEEPSINGH BASWANTSINGH THAKUR Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) The reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 is far from satisfactory, rather it borders upon interfering in the administration of justice. We say so with all sense of responsibility. The least that is expected from the State is to be correct on facts and straight forward in submissions. The reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, does not fulfill any of these parameters. The reply is misleading and also takes a ground which is not stated in the impugned order, for resisting this petition. It appears that the respondent No.2 has taken the issue quite personally and, therefore, while filing an affidavit, he has displayed his utter dislike for the petitioner. Being a public servant, it is expected of respondent No.2 to be fair in performance of his duty and treat all the inmates of the jail as well as his staff members with equality. But, that has not been done by the respondent No.2. This time we would not pass any order which may be adverse to the interest of respondent No.2, but, we would like to put respondent No.2 and the officers like him who are public servants on guard by what we have said just now.