Expunction of Remarks

Appellant was a judicial officer who was aggrieved of remarks against him, passed by Division Bench of High Court in the judgment in question

Validity

Petitioner only sought expunction of stricture, which had nothing to do with merits of the decision of High Court

High Court was required to evaluate whether the passage complained of was reprehensible; its preservation on record would cause disparagement to the credit of petitioner; and its expunction would not affect the judgment or order on merits

Before passing any stricture on demeanour and career of petitioner, Division Bench of High Court should have given him an opportunity to submit his comments/report

No such opportunity was provided to him by Divisional Bench of High Court before passing order in the Court

Even in the case of some lapses found to be surfacing on part of the judicial officer, the order or report could be sent to Chief Justice for taking action on administrative side through the Confidential Branch

Supreme Court set aside the remarks/directions made in relevant paragraph of order in question which were essentially structured on oral motion of Acting Prosecutor General; were unjustified, and made without probing into the issue and without calling for comments from the Presiding Officer or without even affording him a right of audience

Appeal was disposed of.

Appellant was a judicial officer who was aggrieved of remarks against him, passed by Division Bench of High Court in the judgment in question

Validity

Petitioner only sought expunction of stricture, which had nothing to do with merits of the decision of High Court

High Court was required to evaluate whether the passage complained of was reprehensible; its preservation on record would cause disparagement to the credit of petitioner; and its expunction would not affect the judgment or order on merits

Before passing any stricture on demeanour and career of petitioner, Division Bench of High Court should have given him an opportunity to submit his comments/report

No such opportunity was provided to him by Divisional Bench of High Court before passing order in the Court

Even in the case of some lapses found to be surfacing on part of the judicial officer, the order or report could be sent to Chief Justice for taking action on administrative side through the Confidential Branch

Supreme Court set aside the remarks/directions made in relevant paragraph of order in question which were essentially structured on oral motion of Acting Prosecutor General; were unjustified, and made without probing into the issue and without calling for comments from the Presiding Officer or without even affording him a right of audience

Appeal was disposed of.

Petitioner filed suit against widow of deceased for specific performance of agreement in respect of the house belonging to deceased

Defendant/widow filed her cognovits and the suit was decreed ex-parte

Respondents/co-sharers of the house challenged the ex-parte decree through application under S.12(2), C.P.C., on the ground that the deceased had died issueless leaving behind one widow, therefore, the defendant/widow could only inherit 1/4th share out of the legacy of the deceased and was not competent to sell the entire house

Trial Court dismissed the application with the observation that while passing ex-parte decree only the share of defendant/widow was decreed and the decree did not affect the rights of respondents

Petitioner filed review petition for expunction of remarks relating to rights of respondents, which was dismissed

Appeal against said order was also dismissed

Validity

Trial Court, while passing ex-parte decree, had specifically decreed the share of defendant in favour of the petitioner

Even if the remarks relating to rights of respondents was expunged even then it would not affect the observation of Trial Court recorded in the ex-parte decree

Petitioner had not filed any appeal for the modification of the ex-parte decree and it had attained finality

Concurrent findings of courts below did not suffer from any illegality

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought expunction of adverse remarks recorded against him by the Sessions Judge in the proceedings initiated against the sureties under S.514, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner had verified antecedents of sureties being Nazim of the concerned Union Council

Sessions Judge had observed that the conduct of petitioner was very dirty; that he had performed the role of tout and that not only he had cheated the sureties but had also tried to practice fraud upon the court by verifying such sureties who did not enjoy good reputation, therefore, the Sessions Judge directed the Secretary Local Government to initiate action against the petitioner

Validity

Observations of Sessions Judge were without any backing and record

No responsibility was placed on the verifier of sureties while granted bail to accused persons

Role of verifier of the bail bonds was limited to the extent that he verified the sureties to be local residents

Court had to determine as to whether the sureties were reliable and men of means

Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to justify his position, therefore the observations were hit by Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Adverse remarks as record by the Sessions Judge against the petitioner were expunged by the High Court.

While rejecting petitioner's nomination and sending its decision to the Commission, the Committee acted within the Constitutional mandate

High Court declined to take any exception to the decision of Parliamentary Committee

Findings on the petitioner's professional competence and compromising attitude were beyond the mandate of Parliamentary Committee

High Court set aside the findings made by Parliamentary Committee and expunged such findings of the Committee from its decision

High Court maintained the decision of Parliamentary Committee to the extent of sending the petitioner's case to Judicial Commisison for its confirmation or otherwise in terms of 2nd proviso to Art.175-A(12) of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Grievance of judicial officer was that remarks in question in the Annual Confidential Report were written by an officer not competent to write, as the judicial officer had not served for ninety days under that reporting officer

Validity

Minimum time as provided by instructions contained in Letter No.S(R)-3542S&GAD4-8/65-SO-X111, dated 12-2-1968, for a reporting officer to form a judicious opinion about work of his subordinate for the purpose of writing a report on his work and conduct, was ninety days and report recorded in respect of period less than the Minimum laid down period was liable to be ignored

Judicial officer did not work under the supervision of the reporting officer for the prescribed period of three months and he was transferred from the station concerned even prior to the posting of reporting officer at that station as District and Sessions Judge

Such formation of judicious opinion by reporting officer about the work and conduct of the judicial officer was out of question

Adverse remarks could not be made on the basis of personal knowledge and information as the same was violative of paras 4 and 8 of Letter No. S(R)-3542 S&GAD 4-8/65-SO-X111, dated 12-2-1968

Neither the reporting officer was competent nor justified to record the adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report of judicial officer for the period in question

High Court directed to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the judicial officer

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Contention of the Government was that the remarks were uncalled for and before making the same, Government was not afforded any opportunity of hearing

Validity-.-Held, in order to decide question directly involving the case as to teaching experience, it was not necessary to go into deeper analysis

Remarks made by the High Court in its judgment were expunged by Supreme Court.

No opportunity of being heard before recording such remarks was provided to the counsel, thus, violating the principles of natural justice

If there was any misconduct before the Court, it was its duty to have written the facts of the misconduct on its face for anyone to judge the misconduct, keeping such facts in a state of enigma was unfair to the counsel

Court by having not given the facts of misconduct, remarks passed by it were based on his subjective approach and was an arbitrary conclusion

Such conclusion, without the facts and reason could not sustain in the eye of law

Remarks recorded by Court were ordered to be expunged in circumstances.

Judge in chamber making observations against Chief Minister of the Province in relation to his certain acts and as regards some disputes between the Federal Government and the Government of Province on the exercise of administrative authority by the Federation in the Province and condemning him unheard

Supreme Court being the exclusive forum provided by the Constitution for resolving such disputes between the two Governments such observation of the Court made in a summary manner on a subject of highly sensitive nature were unjustified and without jurisdiction and were ordered to be expunged.

Expunction of Remarks Petitioner (Vice-Chancellor) requesting for expunction of remarks recorded by High Court as also remission of cots imposed on him

In view of Vice Chancellor's exalted position in one of the highest seats of learning in the country, request for expunction of remarks was acceded to and relevant para was deleted as if it had never been a part thereof, and as a necessary consequence thereof, costs imposed on him (Vice-Chancellor) would also stand remitted.

High Court, in a bail matter of accused had called concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Court to question him about the merits of the case

High Court, in its order in the case observed that `therefore D.S.P. is liable to be proceeded for misconduct, inefficiency and may reasonably be considered corrupt' directing the D.I.-G. to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him td be finalised within two months with a compliance report

Supreme Court, on appeal, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, held, that such remarks should have been avoided by the High Court and- instead the department could be advised for proper legal action against him

Supreme Court disposed of the appeal diluting the detrimental character of the observations of the High Court.

Observations in the judgment of High Court which related to the right of a party to seek remedy before the Supreme Court, not being proper as it was' likely to be misunderstood were ordered to be expunged by Supreme Court.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether adverse remarks recorded in the judgment of High Court, dismissing Constitutional petition filed by Civil Servant, were not such as to be expunged from the judgment being extraneous, not based on record and not deserved by the Civil Servant.

[Supreme Court].

Disparaging remarks against person neither a party nor witness in proceedings-Labour Appellate Tribunal exercising suo motu revision jurisdiction for expunctions of such remarks-Labour Court making sweeping observation against office-bearers of workers' union generally-Only one office bearer a party to proceedings and another appearing as witness-Other office-bearers neither party to proceedings nor witnesses therein-Observations severable from rest of judgment-Direction for expunction of such remarks, in circum, stances, issued by Appellate Tribunal -Expunction of remarks from order of Labour Court-Revision jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1,969), S. 38 (3-a).

S. 561-A-Expunction of remarks-Petitioner a IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge empowered by Sessions Judge to do scrutiny work, send for R & P in suitable cases, and make references or entertain, revisions, finding certain complaints improperly dismissed by a Magistrate, hence proceeding in suo motu revision and directing notice to accused-Complainant having gone in revision before ist Additional Sessions Judge records called for but sent by office directly without bringing such fact to petitioner's notice and revision dismissed by ist Additional Sessions Judge-Notices issued by petitioner served on accused, acc used appearing on first hearing but failing to appear on adjourned date

Petitioner initiating action against accused under S. 174, Penal Code, 1860- and issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest High Court in revision filed by accused holding matter having been finally dealt with by ist Additional Sessions Judge and consequently not liable to be re-opened-High Court further holding petitioner

Cannot be interfered with in proceedings for expunction of remarks.

Expungement of remarks from judgment-Strongly worded criticism of Magistrate's action by High Court-Whether derogatory to Magistrate-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.

Expunction of Remarks Unjustified remarks in High Court judgment against Special Judge that he was "biased" against refugees, and that such bias disabled a Judge from "performing any judicial function whatsoever"-Remarks expunged as harmful to Special Judge's service prospects.

Expungement of remarks from judgment-Petition for, by affected third person-Complainant in case in which judgment was delivered need not be made respondent to petition.