RAJEEV SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) IN this appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 14.11.2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court the appellant appears to be aggrieved of the adverse remarks recorded against him in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment under appeal, specially the part which directs that said remarks be entered in his character roll and the communicated to him.

(3.) WE have seen the explanation offered by the appellant as also the explanation submitted by the learned District Judge. To us it appears to be an act of bonafide mistake. Undoubtedly the learned District Judge and the appellant could have been more vigilant and more careful in dealing with a matter which was pending in this Court and in ensuring that the counter affidavit should have been filed on their behalf with promptitude and without any delay. Their negligence however, does not border on culpability and, therefore, viewed thus, the adverse comments recorded by the learned single Judge against the appellant in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment appear to be somewhat misplaced. In our considered view, these adverse comments do require to be expunged from the judgment under appeal.