IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.10974 of 2011
Akhilesh Thakur
Versus
The State Of Bihar
-----------
5/ 27.7.2011 Regard being had to the seriousness of the allegation and
considering further the submissions of both sides that the
prosecution has now concluded its evidence and the case is pending
only for hearing arguments, the Court does not feel inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected.
Heard Shri Parmeshwar Mehta, learned counsel on the cause
shown by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali pursuant to this
Court’s order dated 22.6.2011.
The officer has tendered unqualified apology and also
submitted in his replies to the notice issued against him that he could
not understand the implications of his acts and he was simply moved
by the advice of the counsel, who had drafted that particular letter,
which was directly addressed to me. He has further averred, as may
appear from paragraph 5 of the replies that he had neither indulged
in the act in order to undermine the Court nor he was violating the
court’s order intentionally. It was on account of the wrong
interpretation that he had fallen in error. He had undertaken to obey
the orders of this Court and has regretted that his replies could not
be as per the rules framed by this Court on filing of such show cause
applications and he has tendered unconditional apology for the
same.
2
At the same time, perused the report of the Registrar
General.
The Registrar General has submitted that the office note, by
which the earlier reply of the Superintendent of Police, which was
addressed to the Judge of this Court, which was placed into the
bench, was indeed an act which could be sufficient for initiating any
action against the Assistant or persons who were associated in
giving that particular note dated 18.5.2011, was undermining the
practice of the Court and rules in that behalf that the replies, if any,
had to be addressed to an officer of the Registry, who could be
placing the reply properly before the bench. This aspect of the
matter was undergone by the Registrar General as he was noting that
the aforesaid mistake occurred due to lack of proper training to the
employees concerned.
The Court may accept the view of the Registrar General that
it was on account of lack of training of the employees of the court
who are falling in error but that could be confined in a case of
Assistant only but when the indulgence of an employee of the rank
of Section Officer is concerned, it could not be acceptable to me at
least because, a Section Officer is supposed to be quite seasoned
employee who could have imbibed the spirits of the rules and could
have adopted the practice which have been laid down by the rules of
the court and formulating such reply and placed the same before the
bench of the court. The employees who have been named by the
3
Registrar General in his report, as such, appear simply escaping the
responsibility of acting with responsibility and a sense of duty. They
are warned on that account to be cautious else, on the next occasion,
it may not be so easy for them to escape a harsher order from this
Court.
The Registrar General shall communicate the person
concerned the relevant part of the order.
Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)