R.C. Lahoti,J. - (1.) Leave granted. The appellant before us is a member of Higher Judicial Service, presently posted as an Additional District Judge in a Fast Track Court. The appellant was Presiding Judge of the trial court wherein an accused was facing trial (since 1994) in a criminal case on charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the year 2001, the accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Criminal Procedure Code") seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground of delay at the trial. On 8th March, 2001 a learned Single Judge of the High Court hearing the petition filed by the accused, passed an order directing the trial court to take all possible steps immediately to ensure that the witnesses were positively examined on 24th April, 2001. The trial court was also directed to explain as to why for such a long time, very often process was not issued to the witnesses resulting in prolonging of the trial. The petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was kept pending. It came up for hearing again on 27th April, 2001. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner seems to have complained before the High Court that only 20 witnesses were called by the trial court to remain present on 24th April, 2001 out of whom only 5 witnesses turned up and they were examined while the next date was appointed as 29th May, 2001. The learned Single Judge hearing the petition seems to have felt agitated on non- receipt of the explanation from the Presiding Judge of the trial court in the terms as directed on 8th March, 2001. The case was taken up for hearing in the earlier part of the day. The Registry was directed to seek an explanation from the Presiding Judge of the trial court post-haste on telephone and the case was directed to be taken up in the later part of the day i.e. post-lunch. The oral response as received on telephone and brought to the knowledge of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was a gist of the explanation which was received on the following day in writing. The Presiding Officer of the trial court explained that the summons to the witnesses who were to be examined were issued in time for recording evidence on the appointed date i.e. 24th April, 2001. However, only 5 witnesses turned up and their statements were recorded. In all, there were 60 witnesses to be examined. The trial court had directed them to be summoned by appointing 3 dates of hearing i.e. 29th May, 2001; 12th June, 2001 and 26th June, 2001. The date 29th May, 2001 was appointed for examining such witnesses as had failed to turn up on 24th April, 2001 while the remaining two dates were appointed for examining 20 witnesses on each date. So far as the non-issuance of the process (and also the non-examination of the witnesses) is concerned it will be useful to extract and reproduce the following part of the explanation furnished by the trial court:- "Explanation was sought from the concerned Clerk for not issuing the process earlier. In between the application of the accused for closing the prosecution evidence, total 11 hearings took place. Out of which process was issued for three dates. The Clerk explained that due to excess work load, process could not be issued. Strict instructions have been given for issue of process to the Clerk. Delay in deciding the case was also due to non-returning the process by the police. On indicating the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, while issuing the letter with process dated 24/4/2001, 13 processes were served. Out of which five witnesses were present whose evidence was recorded. Sir, approximately four thousand cases were pending before this Court already. Currently, about two thousand five hundred cases are pending. Different work remains excessive. In this case, there are four different counsels for the accused. For that the Court has to spend more time for their presence at one time. Returning of process by the police is also unsatisfactory. At number of times, processes are not returned. Even in returning the process, reports are sent incomplete. Even after these circumstances, I assure you, Sir, that in deciding the cases, every step will be taken for early disposal." On 27th April, 2001 the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code preferred by the accused to be dismissed. However, at the same time in the operative part of the order, the learned Single Judge directed the Registrar General to 'initiate necessary departmental proceedings' against the Presiding Judge of the trial court 'looking to the conduct of the trial judge' and 'for not complying with the order' passed by the High Court on 8th March, 2001 'in not submitting his explanation by today and for the gross delay in the trial'. A copy of the order was directed to be kept on the personal file of the Judge concerned.
(2.) The Subordinate Judge left with no other alternative preferred a petition to the High Court seeking expunging of the observations made and direction given by the learned Single Judge to the extent to which they were directed against him. The petition has been disposed of by the impugned order by another learned Single Judge of the High Court who has observed that the explanation which was sought to be provided by the learned Subordinate Judge in his petition was available to be set up by way of defence in the disciplinary proceedings directed to be initiated against him and, therefore, it could not be said that the order of the High Court dated 27th April, 2001 would result in any manifest injustice or would amount to abuse of process of any Court. Feeling aggrieved, the Subordinate Judicial Officer has filed this appeal by special leave.
(3.) The High Court has made appearance through a counsel instructed by the Registrar of the High Court. A counter-affidavit sworn in by the Registrar (Writs) of the High Court has been filed contesting the petition for special leave to appeal.;