ORDER By this Court -Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was a Member of the Superior Judicial Service and was holding the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Fodder Scam, Ranchicum AJC, Civil Court, Ranchi and was in seisin of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.208/2010, corresponding to G.R No.4996/2010 and S.T No.515/2011. The accused of that case approached this Court by filing bail application, B.A No.1223/2012, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.3.2012 allowed the bail application and while doing so, observed that before the petitioner the case was pending on the point of framing of charge for the last six months but the petitioner did not frame the charge against the accused person and thereafter further observed that “formed habit of adjourning the case on the whimsical request of A.P.P” and therefore, learned Single Judge held that it is a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner and the negligent act of the petitioner is required to be recorded in his ACR, for which the matter may be placed before Hon'ble Zonal Judge of the district of Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Single Judge should not have passed any order in judicial side so as to put any remark in ACR and if the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter required consideration with respect to the conduct of the petitioner, then the matter should have been referred to the High Court/Chief Justice for consideration and straightway passing order of adverse remark to be recorded in ACR is wholly without jurisdiction as it could not have been passed as a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the High Court against the petitioner so as to make it binding upon the appointing/disciplinary authority to record adverse remarks in the ACR without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without enquiry and without holding him guilty. It is also submitted that the only allegation in the impugned order is that the petitioner did not frame charge in a criminal case for six months and adjourned the matter on the request of A.P.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in fact, it was duly explained by the order sheets themselves that the case was adjourned even for the reason of transfer of A.P.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was holding the charge of the court dealing with the cases of C.B.I as well as infamous Fodder Scam cases and therefore, he was supposed to give priority to the cases of C.B.I and Fodder Scam cases which are A.H.D cases of C.B.I. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kashi Nath Roy Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996)4 SCC 539 and of Braj Kishore Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 4 SCC 65 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a matter of bail granted by the District & Sessions Judge, order of bail was challenged before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court, after calling for a report from the District & Sessions Judge and considering the said report, cancelled the bail and also made severe stricture against the Judicial Officer which was held to be unwarranted and had been expunged and in the earlier case also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the similar situation quashed the adverse observation. 4. We need not go into the details of the case but it is now a settled law that while deciding the matter in judicial side, if the court was of the opinion that matter was required to be considered with respect to even Judicial Officer for passing any order in administrative side, then that matter could be referred to the High Court/Chief Justice for initiation of appropriate departmental proceeding. If any order requiring to record adverse remark/entry in the ACR is straightway passed in judicial side, then that deprives the disciplinary authority from its power of taking appropriate action against the guilty person as well as denies opportunity to the delinquent officer in defending him for the allegation of lapses on his part. If any order requiring to record adverse remark/entry in the ACR is straightway passed in judicial side, then that deprives the disciplinary authority from its power of taking appropriate action against the guilty person as well as denies opportunity to the delinquent officer in defending him for the allegation of lapses on his part. It is also a settled law that the High Court or the appellate court should keep retrained while making observation against the Judicial Officer. It is also an admitted case that before passing order against the petitioner, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioner by the learned Single Judge and obtaining a status report of a case is only an act of obtaining material for forming opinion and after obtaining material and forming prima facie opinion, the matter may be subject matter for departmental enquiry, which can be initiated by the appointing/disciplinary authority. In departmental enquiry, all materials including, if any admission of guilty officer is there, then that admission is required to be brought to the notice of the officer, so that he may give his explanation. In present case, petitioner had no knowledge of any charge against him, nor collection of information from petitioner can be said to be opportunity to explain the conduct of the petitioner. From one case, the opinion could not have been formed that the petitioner formed habit of adjourning the case on whimsical request of A.P.P. Therefore, such matter can be dealt with and decided only in administrative side. 5. In view of the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that adverse remarks made against the writ petitioner in the last paragraph, which are quoted below, of the order dated 16.3.2012 passed in B.A No.1223/2012 are expunged : “I have gone through the report submitted by the concerned A.J.C IV cum Special Judge, CBI/AHD, Ranchi, sent to this Court on 02.03.2012. The case is pending for hearing on the point of framing of charge for the last six months but the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has failed to frame the charge against the accused persons and formed habit of adjourning the case on the whimsical request of APP. The case is pending for hearing on the point of framing of charge for the last six months but the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has failed to frame the charge against the accused persons and formed habit of adjourning the case on the whimsical request of APP. I feel this is nothing but negligence on the part of A.J.C – IV – cum Special Judge, CBI/AHD, Ranchi and therefore, this negligence act of concerned A.J.C – IV cum Special Judge, CBI/AHD, Ranchi, is required to be recorded in his ACR for which the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble Zonal Judge of the District Ranchi.” This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.