- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made part of the investigation of a case bearing Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case no.226 of 2002 instituted under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the Investigation was taken over by another Investigating Officer who on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet, upon which the trial commenced during which the parties adduced their evidences. Thereupon judgment was delivered but while delivering the judgment the learned Sessions Judge made following observation in paragraph 35. " Therefore Inspector Javed Mahmood, Sub- Inspector,M.R.Bhargav and Sub-Inspector Niraj Pathak, the petitioner (all investigating officers of the case) should be immediately dismissed from police service for their active connivance with the accused. Sooner they are removed, better for the police administration"
(3.) On such observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner wherein number of charges were framed including one charge which reads as follows :- " Learned Sessions Judge while delivering the judgment did find that this petitioner had gone in collusion with the accused person and, therefore, observation has been made to terminate the services of the petitioner." Being aggrieved with the departmental proceeding and the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, this writ applicationhas been filed for quashing the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge and also for quashing the departmental proceeding as all the charges are related to observation which was made behind the back of the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge and as such, any observation affecting the right of a person if made without giving an opportunity of being heard is fit to be expunged.;