JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th November 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Banswara by which directions were given to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner Naresh Kumar Khatik, Investigating Officer in Sessions Case No. 14/2007, State v. Ishwar Lal , without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged against one Ishwar Patidar and others by Shri Jagdish Patidar, inter alia, alleging that his sister, who was married to the accused Ishwar Patidar, has been killed by the accused as demand of dowry could not be fulfilled. It was also alleged that the accused used to torture her sister, physically as well as mentally, as she could not conceive a child. 4. The case was registered against the accused persons and the Police, after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against accused for offence punishable under sections 498A, 306 Indian Penal Code. 5. The present petitioner, who was then Dy. S.P., Banwara, was given charge as Investigating Officer. During the trial, it was deposed by few of prosecution witnesses that the investigation in the matter was not done fairly and properly. 6. The learned trial court below found the accused persons guilty of offences as mentioned in the charge sheet and finally ordered for conviction of the accused vide order dated 13th November 2007. It was also directed that the Investigating Officer (present petitioner) has failed to discharge his official duty in a fair and proper manner, therefore, disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him. Being aggrieved by impugned order dated 13th November 2007, directing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition seeking indulgence of this Court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that whole approach of the learned court below is unlawful and illegal, as such, the impugned order directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside to this extent, since the learned court below has exceeded in its jurisdiction in passing the order impugned. The learned court below can not and should not order to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner just on the basis of accepting contents in the statements of few prosecution witnesses. The learned court below can not and should not order to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner just on the basis of accepting contents in the statements of few prosecution witnesses. 8. It is further contended that the learned court below has erred in passing the order impugned to the extent of raising suspicion on the investigation conducted by the petitioner, in the capacity of Investigating Officer while he was the then Dy.S.P., Banswara. When the entire investigation was done in most fair and proper manner and further, on the basis of the investigation, accused persons have been convicted by the same court below; learned court below has committed mistake in passing the directions impugned. 9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is evident that no formal complaint was lodged by any of the prosecution witnesses or complainant thereto against the present petitioner. It is pertinent to submit that if the prosecution was at all aggrieved by the investigation being not allegedly done in fair manner then it should have lodged complaint against the petitioner at that very juncture where such unfairness was perceived. Hence, it is contended, the impugned order directing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is without any basis and as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order impugned has been passed just by believing statement of few prosecution witnesses, mentioning that the photographs of the deceased were taken after removal of Sari and stone tied with body of the deceased. It is worthwhile to mention here that neither any complaint was even lodged nor any such narration was done by brother of the deceased himself before the court. The learned court below has passed the impugned direction in most arbitrary manner, violating the principles of natural justice and therefore, prayer is made that the impugned direction vide order dated 13th November 2007 is bad in law and can not be sustained and the same may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment reported in 1980 Cr.LJ. 879, Govindaraj Shetty v. State of Karnataka in support of his arguments. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment reported in 1980 Cr.LJ. 879, Govindaraj Shetty v. State of Karnataka in support of his arguments. 11. It is indeed settled principle of law and part of principles of natural justice that a man can not be condemned unheard, therefore, before passing any stricture or adverse remark against the petitioner, the learned Judge was legally bound to issue notice to him and hear him; because such stricture or adverse remark would affect further career of the petitioner. Hence, before passing an order, which would have adverse effect on the petitioner, a fair opportunity of hearing should have been given to him. Since no notice was issued to him by the learned trial Judge before passing the impugned direction, the perversity is apparent on the face of the order impugned. 12. In para 5 of the above cited judgment delivered in the case of Govindaraj Shetty (supra), it was categorically held as follows: "Any remark passed by the Court against a person whether he is a party to the proceedings or not, should be passed only after giving the said party an opportunity to meet the same. In other words, the principles of natural justice demand that a party should be heard before any remarks are made against him. This is, much more so, in case, where disparaging remarks are made by the court, that too, against a responsible officer like an Investigating Officer. The Court should be fully satisfied that such remarks are called for and on the other hand that the conduct of the Investigating Officer was such that the Court was compelled to make such remarks in the interest of justice. Therefore, the Court has to be slow before passing any remarks and has to arm itself with all the available materials and with sufficient background including one of hearing the party against whom the Court wants to pass remarks. This procedure is not followed. In my view, the Court would not be justified in passing remarks at random behind the back of the person which would prejudice him. This appears to be the cardinal principle that has to be followed by a Court of law. This procedure is not followed. In my view, the Court would not be justified in passing remarks at random behind the back of the person which would prejudice him. This appears to be the cardinal principle that has to be followed by a Court of law. The aforesaid ratio is reiterated by a series of cases and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 it is laid down by the Supreme Court that the Court must satisfy, firstly, whether the party whose conduct in question is before the court or had an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; secondly, whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and thirdly, whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. Further, it has been laid down that such remarks must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 13. The prayer of the petitioner regarding impugned directions passed by the learned court below is squarely covered by the ratio of aforesaid judgment in Govindaraj Shetty's case (supra) and hence, present Misc. Petition deserves to be accepted. 14. Consequently, this Misc. Petition is allowed and it is ordered that the impugned directions regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner-the then Investigating Officer in the case before the court below, made by the learned court below while deciding Sessions Case No.14/2007, State v. Ishwar Lal , stands deleted from the order dated 13th November 2007 and said strictures would not adversely affect service career of the petitioner in any manner.The Stay Petition also stands disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******