Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a judicial officer holding the post of Joint Charity Commissioner and additional charge of Charity Commissioner, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking expungement of adverse remarks made by the Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in paragraph 26 of its judgment dated 22nd March 2001 in Original Application No. 819 of 2000. The petitioner was not impleaded by name in the original application but was joined as respondent No. 4 in his official capacity as Charity Commissioner. The original application was filed by one Ajit Pawar, a government servant acting as Executive Officer of Shri Sai Baba Sansthan, Shirdi, challenging an order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the State Government and the Charity Commissioner directing him to hand over charge to the Sub Divisional Officer. The Tribunal allowed the application and made certain observations regarding the conduct of the Charity Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the remarks were unwarranted and made without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The High Court examined the remarks and found that they were based on the official acts of the petitioner in his capacity as Charity Commissioner and did not attribute any personal misconduct. The court held that the power to expunge remarks is exercised sparingly and only when the remarks are based on misconduct or are wholly unjustified. Since the remarks were made in the course of judicial proceedings and were relevant to the issues, the petition was dismissed. The court also noted that the petitioner had not been given a hearing, but this did not warrant expungement as the remarks were not personal.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Expungement of Remarks - Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officer - The petitioner sought expungement of remarks made by the Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in a judgment. The court held that such remarks, made in the course of judicial proceedings, cannot be expunged unless they are based on misconduct or are wholly unwarranted. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before the remarks were made, but the court found that the remarks were based on official acts and not personal misconduct. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Adverse Remarks - Opportunity of Hearing - The court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the Tribunal made adverse remarks. It was held that while ordinarily a person should be heard before adverse remarks are made, in this case the remarks were made in the context of a service dispute and were not directed at the petitioner personally. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the adverse remarks made by the Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal against the petitioner, a judicial officer, in a judgment can be expunged under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the adverse remarks made by the Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal cannot be expunged as they were based on official acts and not personal misconduct.
Law Points
- Expungement of adverse remarks
- judicial officer
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Constitution of India
- natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
