S.K. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Shri S.K. Sharma, petitioner, seeking the expunction of remarks made against him when the petitioner was discharging his duties as Government Food Inspector, Jind and said remarks were passed by the learned CJM, Jind in case titled Food Inspector v. Dashrath, decided on 9.2.1991 vide Annexure P. 1. on the ground that principles of natural justice have not been met by the learned CJM, Jind before passing the impugned remarks. The petitioner has also attached letter Annexure P. 2. alleging that the learned CJM had no jurisdiction to write to the department recommending an action against the petitioner. By virtue of this letter Annexure P. 2 the powers of the petitioner as Government Food Inspector has been illegally withdrawn.

(2.) IT has been repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Courts should be slow in passing adverse remarks against the public servant lest confidence of the public may be shattered in the system itself. If the courts are compelled to pass strictures against public servants then principles of natural justice should be met and the alleged delinquent public servant be given an opportunity to explain under which circumstances he made a contrary statement in the court of law. To jump to a conclusion forthwith that every statement made by a public servant is (tained ?) or has been made in order to favour the accused without affording any opportunity to him is not administration of law in the real sense. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that he had not given any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct. A public servant is supposed to perform multifarious duties. Like that the petitioner had to discharge his duties of Government Food Inspector. He must have taken several samples as Government Food Inspector and he could fumble in Court in one respect or the other. I do not want to drag further this order, but suffice to mention that the remarks recorded by the learned CJM, Jind require to be expunged as principles of natural justice have not been met in this case. The learned CJM should not even have written to the department for an independent action against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I also quash the letter Annexure P. 2. Petition allowed.