ORDER : A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner today in the Court, which is kept on record. 2. The petitioner has filed this application praying therein to expunge the adverse remarks made against the petitioner in the order dated 22.4.2016 in B.A.No.1412 of 2016 with a direction to enter the same in the “Annual Confidential Report” of the petitioner with note that the same should be looked into at the time of his promotion. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by no stretch of imagination, this adverse remark could have been passed against this petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not violated any undertaking given by him before this Court which could have warranted this harsh stricture against him. He submits that, in fact, he has produced the witnesses before the trial court but the same could not be examined on the date fixed. The fact of non-examination of the produced witness was not within his knowledge. He submits that this Hon'ble Court was also not informed about the aforesaid fact, resulting in the adverse remarks. He further submits that, in fact, this Court failed to take into consideration that this petitioner has not given any undertaking before this Court, rather has intimated to the Additional Public Prosecutor by a letter that the witnesses will be produced in the Court. 4. Since the learned Judge who passed the order is no more a Judge of this High Court, the case has been placed before me. I have gone through the record and heard the parties. 5. A bail application was filed by one Amit Kumar Gupta before this High Court being B.A.No.2401 of 2015.The said bail application was heard on 30.10.2015. In the said bail application, an affidavit was filed by the State annexing a letter of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla (petitioner). The said letter was addressed to the Additional Public Prosecutor of this Court. In the said letter, he has intimated the Additional Public Prosecutor that the witnesses, four in number, will be produced before the Court within four months. This letter was annexed with the affidavit sworn by Circle Inspector of Police in B.A.No.2401 of 2015. This Hon’ble Court on 30.10.2015, in view of the affidavit, rejected the bail application. In the said letter, he has intimated the Additional Public Prosecutor that the witnesses, four in number, will be produced before the Court within four months. This letter was annexed with the affidavit sworn by Circle Inspector of Police in B.A.No.2401 of 2015. This Hon’ble Court on 30.10.2015, in view of the affidavit, rejected the bail application. However, liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail if the witnesses are not examined by the prosecution by January, 2016. 6. Again the accused moved before this Hon’ble Court for grant of bail, vide B.A. No.1412 of 2016. While dealing with the bail application, this Court on 8.4.2016 took note of the earlier order dated 30.10.2015 passed in B.A.No.2401 of 2015. It was then submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on the date fixed, out of four witnesses, only one was examined and three remaining witnesses are yet to be examined. On this submission, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Gumla (petitioner) to remain physically present in the Court on 22.4.2016 and to show cause as to why appropriate action will not be taken against him. This order was passed on the pretext that the petitioner has violated his undertaking and has not produced the witnesses. The petitioner appeared and filed his show cause. The said show cause has also been brought on record in this case. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the show cause are reproduced hereinbelow. “3. That it is respectfully submitted that bailable warrants issued by the Learned Lower Court were duly executed on 3.12.2015 by taking due undertaking from the sureties of the witnesses for securing their presence before the court of law and service-reports were duly filed before the Court below. 4. That the deponent humbly submits that the witness, namely, (i) Gautam Prasad, (ii) Nirmala Devi, (iii) Dharmendra Prasad appeared before the Learned Lower Court below on 15.12.2015 and field their respective attendance. 5. That it is respectfully submitted that only one witness namely, Gautam Kumar i.e. informant of the case was examined and cross-examined lastly on 6.1.2016. 6. That the deponent humbly submits that till today no other process has been issued.” 7. 5. That it is respectfully submitted that only one witness namely, Gautam Kumar i.e. informant of the case was examined and cross-examined lastly on 6.1.2016. 6. That the deponent humbly submits that till today no other process has been issued.” 7. The court below thereafter on 22.4.2016 came to conclusion that the petitioner has violated his undertaking by not producing the witnesses and deprecated the action of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla for violating the undertaking given by him. The Court directed the office to communicate the order to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand for entering the aforesaid acts and omission of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla in his “Annual Confidential Report”, so that the same can be looked into at the time of his promotion. 8. From the aforementioned undisputed fact, it is clear that the petitioner was the Superintendent of Police, Gumla. He wrote a letter to the Additional Public Prosecutor of this Court intimating him that four witnesses will be produced before the trial court within four months for recording their evidence. The said letter is on record. From perusal of the said letter it can be understood that he has only informed Additional Public Prosecutor that the witnesses will be produced in the Court within four months. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin and another [ (1980) 3 SCC 47 ] has held that any person appearing before the Court can give an undertaking in two ways: (1) that he files an application or an affidavit clearly setting out the undertaking given by him to Court, or (2) by a clear and express oral undertaking given by the contemner and incorporated by the Court in its order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in a case where undertaking is given by the counsel on behalf of the client, the said undertaking should be carefully construed to find out the extent; the nature of the undertaking actually given by the person concerned. It is not open to the Court to assume an implied undertaking when there is nothing on the record. 10. Applying the said ratio, on the facts of the case, I find that there is no written affidavit by this petitioner spelling out any undertaking before this Court nor any application has been filed by this petitioner. It is not open to the Court to assume an implied undertaking when there is nothing on the record. 10. Applying the said ratio, on the facts of the case, I find that there is no written affidavit by this petitioner spelling out any undertaking before this Court nor any application has been filed by this petitioner. I also find that there was no oral undertaking also given by this petitioner. The letter of the petitioner was only addressed to the A.P.P wherein he has stated that witnesses will be produced within four months. The said letter was made part of the affidavit which was sworn by the Circle Inspector, Basia Circle, Gumla. Thus, admittedly the petitioner has not filed any affidavit before this Court with any undertaking. Applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court feels that the letter cannot be used as an undertaking before the Court by this petitioner. 11. Further from the record I find that pursuant to the letter, three witnesses were produced by the petitioner before the court below on 15.12.2015. The order sheet of S.T.No.63 of 2014 arising out of G.R.No.865 of 2013, corresponding to Gumla P.S. case no.305 of 2013 clearly mentioned that three witnesses were produced and only one witness would be partly examined. This fact was not brought on record before this Court on 8.4.2016 in B.A.No.1412 of 2016. An impression was given to this Court that only one witness was brought and he was examined but, in fact, three witnesses were present before the Court, whose evidences were not recorded by the Court, for which the petitioner cannot be faulted upon. In fact the petitioner had produced three witnesses before the court below on the date fixed. 12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the adverse remarks made against the petitioner needs to be expunged as he was not at fault. 13. Thus, the entire adverse remarks made against the petitioner in the order dated 22.4.2016 is hereby expunged. If any remark has been entered in the Annual Confidential Report of this petitioner by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, in compliance of the order dated 22.4.2016, the same will also stand expunged and will not affect the petitioner while considering his case for promotion if he is otherwise fit. 14. If any remark has been entered in the Annual Confidential Report of this petitioner by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, in compliance of the order dated 22.4.2016, the same will also stand expunged and will not affect the petitioner while considering his case for promotion if he is otherwise fit. 14. With this observation, this application stands allowed.