- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time was a Member of the Superior Judicial Service and was holding the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, CBI, Fodder Scam, Ranchi cum AJC, Civil Court, Ranchi and was in seisin of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.208/2010, corresponding to G.R No.4996/2010 and S.T No.515/2011. The accused of that case approached this Court by filing bail application, B.A No.1223/2012, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.3.2012 allowed the bail application and while doing so, observed that before the petitioner the case was pending on the point of framing of charge for the last six months but the petitioner did not frame the charge against the accused person and thereafter further observed that formed habit of adjourning the case on the whimsical request of A.P.P and therefore, learned Single Judge held that it is a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner and the negligent act of the petitioner is required to be recorded in his ACR, for which the matter may be placed before Hon'ble Zonal Judge of the district of Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learnedSingle Judge should not have passed any order in judicial side so as to put any remark in ACR and if the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter required consideration with respect to the conduct of the petitioner, then the matter should have been referred to the High Court/Chief Justice for consideration and straightway passing order of adverse remark to be recorded in ACR is wholly without jurisdiction as it could not have been passed as a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the High Court against the petitioner so as to make it binding upon the appointing/disciplinary authority to record adverse remarks in the ACR without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without enquiry and without holding him guilty. It is also submitted that the only allegation in the impugned order is that the petitioner did not frame charge in a criminal case for six months and adjourned the matter on the request of A.P.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in fact, it was duly explained by the ordersheets themselves that the case was adjourned even for the reason of transfer of A.P.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was holding the charge of the court dealing with the cases of C.B.I as well as infamous Fodder Scam cases and therefore, he was supposed to give priority to the cases of C.B.I and Fodder Scam cases which are A.H.D cases of C.B.I.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kashi Nath Roy Vs. State of Bihar, 1996 4 SCC 539 and of Braj Kishore Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1997 4 SCC 65, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a matter of bail granted by the District & Sessions Judge, order of bail was challenged before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court, after calling for a report from the District & Sessions Judge and considering the said report, cancelled the bail and also made severe stricture against the Judicial Officer which was held to be unwarranted and had been expunged and in the earlier case also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the similar situation quashed the adverse observation.;