P. Sathasivam, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THESE appeals arise from the judgment and final orders dated 01.03.2012 and 23.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 and Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 122702 of 2012 in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 respectively, whereby the High Court, while allowing the second appeal, passed severe strictures against the Appellant -herein and forwarded a copy of its judgment to Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court to consider as to whether disciplinary proceedings are warranted against him? The case of the Appellant, in brief, is as under: (a) The Appellant, who is a Member of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, is posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad and, according to him, he is having unblemished service career and has successfully completed 30 years of service. (b) The High Court, while allowing the Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 titled U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and Anr. v. Lajja Ram, passed severe strictures against the Appellant herein in the judgment which, according to him, are ultimately going to affect permanently not only his reputation but also his entire service career. (c) It is the claim of the Appellant that in the Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000, he has not rendered any judgment as trial Court Judge or as the first Appellate Court Judge. According to him, a suit bearing No. 418 of 1997 was filed by Shri Lajja Ram against the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and Anr. and the said suit was decided by one learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghaziabad presided over by Shri Chaturbhuj by a judgment and order dated 02.05.1997. Aggrieved by the said judgment, a first appeal was filed being First Appeal No. 105 of 1997 in the Court of Shri A.K. Aggarwal, second Additional Dist. and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. The first Appellate Court framed 12 additional issues and on those additional issues, the matter was remanded to the Court of the Appellant as he was working as Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, in compliance with the order of the first Appellate Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, the Appellant recorded the evidence of the parties and gave his findings on 31.05.1999. (d) It is the case of the Appellant that in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has neither furnished any independent finding on the issues which were determined by the Appellant herein nor anything about his ultimate decision. The present appeal is confined only to the portion wherein the High Court has made certain strictures. The Appellant has also asserted that the High Court has not considered that the Appellant has not rendered any decision as trial Judge or as the Judge of the first Appellate Court. On the direction by the first Appellate Court, only 12 additional issues were adjudicated by the Appellant. Inasmuch as "severe strictures", if allowed to stand, would affect his entire future prospects of service, he approached this Court by filing this appeal by way of special leave. (e) While answering the substantial questions of law, namely, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the High Court decided the same in favour of the Appellants therein and against the Respondents. Ultimately, both the second appeals were allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 and Rs. 1 Lakh in Second Appeal No. 1445 of 2000. The High Court ultimately set aside the decrees passed by the courts below and dismissed both the suits. The High Court also directed that a FIR be lodged immediately against the Plaintiffs for malicious prosecution and manipulation in the official records. After issuing such directions the High Court passed the following order, with which we are concerned in these appeals: Severe stricture is passed against the Judge of the trial Court as well as of lower appellate Court for passing extremely illegal and unjust judgments and decrees. A copy of this judgment shall be placed in their service records and be also sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider as to whether disciplinary proceedings are warranted against them. (f) On coming to know of the strictures and the ultimate direction of the High Court, the Appellant filed a Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 122702 of 2012 in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 for expunging the remarks made in the judgment dated 01.03.2012. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the judicial officer without modifying the judgment, observed that "I did not intend to make any suggestion for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Judge who had decided the remitted issues only", and by saying so disposed of the said application, however, permitted the Appellant to make representation on the administrative side of the High Court. Not satisfied with the same, the Appellant has filed the above appeal for a limited purpose of expunging those adverse remarks.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Learned Counsel for the Registrar General, High Court of Allahabad. In the present appeals, the other parties have been shown only as proforma Respondents.;