http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: P.K. SHASTRI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/08/1999

BENCH: M.Jagannadha Rao, N.Santosh Hegde

JUDGMENT:

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

       Leave granted.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

     In this appeal, the appellant has challenged before us that  part of the order of the High Court of Madhya  Pradesh at  Jabalpur whereby the learned Judge had "directed that an entry  be made in the C.R.  of the Presiding Officer that he has  no control over the proceedings of the court in as much as  he permits the prosecutor to leave several times  during the  court  hours, as a result, the work suffers as  pointed out  by  him in his explanation dated 12.3.98.  Let copy  of this  order be sent to the Registrar General, for making  an entry  in  the  C.R.  of the Presiding Officer."  The  brief facts necessary for considering this appeal are as follows :

     While  disposing of a bail application, the High Court on  26.9.1997 directed that the Trial Court at Datia  before which  Session Trial No.91/95 was pending, should dispose of the  said  case within 4 months from the date of receipt  of the  records of the case.  Since the said direction was  not complied with by the appellant who was the Presiding Officer of  the  Sessions Court at that time, the High Court as  per its  order dated 6.3.1998 called for an explanation from the appellant;   more  particularly, as to why the appellant  as the  Presiding Officer, had adjourned the case on 20.10.1997 and why he allowed the Additional Public Prosecutor to leave the  court  on 14.1.1998.  The said order also  specifically directed  the appellant to submit his explanation as to  why the  Sessions Trial was not concluded within 4 months as per the  directions  issued  by the order of the High  Court  on 26.9.1997.

     The  appellant submitted his explanation on  12.3.1998 wherein  he explained in detail as to what steps were  being taken  for  disposal  of the sessions case and  how  he  was handicapped  by  non-appearance  of   the  witnesses   whose presence  had to be secured through warrants every time.  He assured  the  High Court that all possible efforts  will  be made  to  finalise the proceedings as soon as possible.   In regard  to  the query made as to the non-appearance  of  the Additional  Public  Prosecutor, he submitted that  the  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

officer  was not under his supervisory control and that  the Additional  Public Prosecutor was, at the relevant time, was also  performing  the duties of Additional Director  in  the Office of the District Prosecution Branch in addition to his own  duty  as  Additional   Public  Prosecutor,   therefore, whenever  he is summoned by the Superintendent of Police  of the District, he had to obey the said summons, for all these reasons,  at  times,  adjournments  became  inevitable.   In support  of his explanation that reasonable steps were being taken  by  him to comply with the directions issued  by  the High  Court,  the  appellant   along  with  his  explanation enclosed  the  order-sheet of the concerned case.   However, t  he High Court was not satisfied with this explanation and was  pleased  to  pass an order which is  h  ereinabove.   i mpugned  in  this  appeal,  as referred to  by  us  We  have carefully considered the explanation given by the appellant. While  appreciating the anxiety of the High Court for  quick disposal  of  criminal  cases  more so in  cases  where  the accused  persons  are  in custody, we feel, in  the  instant case, the appellant had shown reasonable cause for not being able  to  comply with the direction of the High Court.   The appellant  appears  to  have  had some  real  difficulty  in securing  the  presence  of witnesses and the  defence  also contributed  its share in the delay of the proceeding, added by  the  fact  that  the Additional  Public  Prosecutor  was saddled  with additional responsibilities and had to be away from the court in that connection.

     However,  we  consider  that   despite  the  handicaps mentioned  above,  it  would  have  been  more  prudent  and appropriate for him to have made a proper application to the High  Court  for extension of time to enable him  to  comply with  the directions of the High Court.  Be that as it  may, we  think  that the C.Rs.  of an Officer are  basically  the performance  appraisal  of  the  said   Officer  and  go  to constitute  vital  service record in relation to his  career advancement.  Any adverse remark in the C.Rs.  could mar the entire  career of that Officer.  Therefore, it is  necessary that  in  the  event  of a remark being called  for  in  the Confidential  Records,  the authority directing such  remark must  first come to the conclusion that the fact-  situation is  such  that it is imperative to make such remarks to  set right  the  wrong  committed by the  Officer  concerned.   A decision  in  this  regard must be taken  objectively  after careful  consideration of all the materials which are before the  authority  directing the remarks being entered  in  the C.Rs.   In  the instant case, the High Court has rested  its opinion  in regard to the efficiency of the Officer based on the  fact-  situation  of a single case and  that  too  with reference  to  the  capacity  of the  Officer  concerned  to control the proceedings of the court.  There was no material before  the  High  Court  that this was the  case  with  the concerned  Sessions  Judge in other cases also nor does  the lacuna  pointed  out by the High Court appear to be such  as would undermine the administration of justice.

     On taking a holistic view of the matter, we are of the opinion  that the direction issued by the High Court,  which is   impugned  in  this  appeal,   should  be   set   aside. Accordingly,  this  appeal  is allowed,  setting  aside  the impugned direction issued by the High Court on 3.4.1998.