JUDGMENT
1. The delay in filing
the appeal is condoned.
2. In this appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 14.11.2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court the appellant appears to be aggrieved of the adverse remarks recorded against him in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment under appeal, specially the part which directs that said remarks be entered in his character roll and the communicated to him.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We have gone through the judgment under appeal as also the documents annexed with the memo of appeal by the appellant. It appears to us that both the appellant as well as the learned District Judge, Hazaribagh were under some mistaken impression with regard to their obligation of filing counter affidavit in this Court in answer to the writ petition and to enable them to do so, they had some difficulty in engaging the counsel or establishing any contact with him or her. It is in this process, perhaps that the appellant might have been misled in either arranging to file counter affidavit, or giving the appropriate briefing to the counsel or in informing his District Judge about what happened on the day when he came to Ranchi from Hazaribagh and in his attempt to find the counsel and on his failure to do so, how he met the Registrar of the High Court and what all happened in his meeting with the Registrar.
4. We have seen the explanation offered by the appellant as also the
explanation submitted by the learned District Judge. To us it appears to be an act of bonafide mistake. Undoubtedly the learned District Judge and the appellant could have been more vigilant and more careful in dealing with a matter which was pending in this Court and in ensuring that the counter affidavit should have been filed on their behalf with promptitude and without any delay. Their negligence however, does not border on culpability and, therefore, viewed thus, the adverse comments recorded by the learned single Judge against the appellant in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment appear to be somewhat misplaced. In our considered view, these adverse comments do require to be expunged from the judgment under appeal.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, there
fore, we allow this appeal and expunge
the adverse comments recorded against
the appellant in paras 9 and 10 of the
judgment under appeal. We however, do
wish to observe and direct that the appellant learned District Judge, Hazaribagh
and others conducted with the defence of
the litigation in this Court shall remain
more careful in future.
6. Appeal allowed.
