JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. In the instant Government appeal on 11.12.2017 an order was passed and certain observations have been made, against the Judge who passed the impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved, the concerned Judge (hereinafter referred to as “the Judge") filed an application for expunging the observations. 2. Record reveals that the respondent Abid Ali @ Asad Ali @ Ajit Singh @ Abu Bakar was convicted in Criminal Case No. 2596 of 2010, State Vs. Abid Ali @ Asad Ali @ Ajit Singh @ Abu Bakar by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Haridwar, on 19.12.2012 for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 9 of The Official Secrets Act, 1923, Section 14 of The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC, Section 12 (1A) a of The Passports Act, 1967 and Section 31 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 and sentenced him thereunder. The respondent preferred an appeal from jail which was registered as Jail Appeal no. 7 of 2013, Ashad Ali Vs. State of Uttarakhand (for short “the appeal"). The appeal was decided on 22.07.2013 and it was allowed. He was acquitted of all the charges. Aggrieved, the State preferred the instant appeal, in which, as stated on 11.12.2017, in an order observations have been made with regard to the Judge who decided the appeal. The Judge moved an application for expunging the remarks. This application is for consideration before this Court. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Judge, would submit that in discharge of his duties judgment was delivered; the observations have been made without affording an opportunity of hearing and in view of directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, such observations could have been avoided, therefore, it is urged that the observations which have been made against the Judge may be expunged. 4. It is also submitted that observations have been made under a mistaken belief that the notices have been served upon the respondent at his address in Pakistan, whereas notices are yet to be served upon the respondent. 5. In its order, this Court on 11.12.2017, inter-alia, recorded as hereunder:- “10. 4. It is also submitted that observations have been made under a mistaken belief that the notices have been served upon the respondent at his address in Pakistan, whereas notices are yet to be served upon the respondent. 5. In its order, this Court on 11.12.2017, inter-alia, recorded as hereunder:- “10. Superintendent of District Jail, Haridwar wrote a letter No. LIU/FRM/Abid/13 dated 22.07.2013 to the S.S.P., Haridwar with a prayer that the accused has been acquitted by the learned Second Additional Session Judge by its judgment and order dated 22.07.2013, who is a foreign national as per the jail record. Therefore, before his release he may be taken in custody and surety be taken from him and seek further direction in the matter. But, on the same day the S.S.P. Haridwar wrote a letter to the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar that since the accused has been released by the learned Second Additional Session Judge, therefore, there is no requirement to take him in custody. Thereafter, the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar wrote another letter No. 787/AR/Foreign Prisoner-Release/13 dated 23.07.2013 and requested the S.S.P. Haridwar that the convict-accused Abid Ali @ Asad Ali @ Ajit Singh @ Abu Bakar S/o Sri Barkat Ali R/o Hazarat Baba Haji Sah Salim Village Hanjarwal P.S. Dhokar Nayazbeg Dakkhana Mansoora, District Lahore, Pakistan, who was convicted by judgment and order dated 19.12.2002 and detained in jail Haridwar. Accused has been acquitted by judgment and order dated 22.07.2013 passed in jail appeal No. 7 of 2013. Therefore, before his release the security be taken from him and he may also be taken to custody. S.S.P., Haridwar on the same day wrote a letter No. LIU/FRM Abid/13 dated 23.07.2013 it appears not be proper to take Abid Ali-accused in custody. 11. Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar again wrote a letter No. 785/AR/Abid Ali/2013 dated 23.07.2013 stating therein that Abid Ali @ Asad Ali @ Ajit Singh @ Abu Bakar S/o Sri Barkat Ali R/o Hazarat Baba Haji Sah Salim Village Hanjarwal P.S. Dhokar Nayazbed Dakkhana Mansoora District Lahore Pakistan was convicted in case No. 2696 of 2010, case crime no. 23 of 2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 19.12.2012. He was sent to the jail by warrant of conviction issued against him. But, in the order of release dated 22.07.2013 the name of Abid Ali and his address is not mentioned. 23 of 2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 19.12.2012. He was sent to the jail by warrant of conviction issued against him. But, in the order of release dated 22.07.2013 the name of Abid Ali and his address is not mentioned. He further mentioned that in jail record, the convict Abid Ali is a resident of Pakistan. Therefore, it was requested that before release of Abid Ali, immediate action be taken, but S.S.P., Haridwar has denied to take action against the respondent. Then, he wrote a letter dated 23.07.2013 to the Second Additional Session Judge, Haridwar that he may be issued appropriate direction in this regard to the release of accused from jail or custody, so the correction be made in jail record at the place of foreign prisoner, his Indian address be corrected and he may be released as per law accordingly. 12. The Additional Second Session Judge, Haridwar has passed the order dated 23.07.2013, which is reproduced herein under:- ßvkns'k vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ dh fjgkbZ vkns'k@fu.kZ; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 22-07-2013 dks ftyk dkjkxkj] gfj}kj Hkstk tk pqdk gSA vihy esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkns'k ls i`Fkd dksbZ funsZ'k nsus dh vko';drk ;k vkSfpR; fn[kkbZ ugha nsrk gSA vr% tsy v/kh{kd ftyk dkjkxkj] gfj)kj dks vihy esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dh izfr Hkh iznku dh tk;A g0@& 23@7@2013 g@& fu.kZ; izfr e; vkns"k izfr ds izkIr dh 23@7@2013Þ 13. The order was received in the Office of Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar along with copy of the impugned order and judgment. Since the Second Additional Session Judge has passed the order on the letter written by the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar and the accused has been acquitted by impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2013, there is no necessary to pass the afresh order. 14. Since the S.S.P., Haridwar as well as the Second Additional Session Judge has directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Haridwar to release the respondent from the jail, therefore, the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar had no other option except to comply the judgment of acquittal passed on 22.07.2013. 15. 14. Since the S.S.P., Haridwar as well as the Second Additional Session Judge has directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Haridwar to release the respondent from the jail, therefore, the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar had no other option except to comply the judgment of acquittal passed on 22.07.2013. 15. In view of this Court, it would reveal from the name and address given by the respondent in the application and in the memo of appeal filed by the respondent, the learned Second Additional Session Judge did not take care of the address and the name of the accused person, while recording the address of accused in this judgment. It might be a mistake due to non- taking its notice, but when the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar sent specific letter to the learned Second Additional Session Judge, Haridwar that there is no mention of name and parental address of the accused in the order of release, then the Second Additional Session Judge should careful and vigilant to pass the order dated 23.07.2013. It appears that the Second Additional Session Judge has deliberately passed the order of acquittal and did not take care of the letter dated 22.07.2013 written by the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar. The Second Additional Session Judge, Haridwar, without taking care of the interest of the country has deliberately passed the ordered dated 23.07.2013 that the accused be released without correcting the record, regarding the address of the accused." “....................................................................................... ................................................................................................ 19. Since the learned Second Additional Session Judge, has acted arbitrary and dishonestly, therefore, the copy of the order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court alongwith copy of the letter written by the accused to the Superintendent of District Jail Haridwar to initiate disciplinary proceedings or appropriate action against the Officer concerned." 6. Apart from it, there have been certain other observations at various places which need not be referred to. This Court is not inclined to burden this Judgment with the various decisions on the subject. Suffice, is to mention the principles, in this regard, as laid down in the case of VK Jain Vs. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and others 2008 (17) SCC 538 . This Court is not inclined to burden this Judgment with the various decisions on the subject. Suffice, is to mention the principles, in this regard, as laid down in the case of VK Jain Vs. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and others 2008 (17) SCC 538 . In Para No. 58 of it, the principle on this subject, has been culled out, which are as follows:- “I. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary in the public mind, for whatever reason, is the greatest threat to the independence of judiciary. II. Judicial discipline and restraint are imperative for the orderly administration of justice. III. Judicial decorum makes it imperative that the court's judgments and orders must be confined to the facts and the legal position involved in the cases and the courts should not deviate from propriety, moderation and sobriety. IV. Majesty of the court is not displayed solely in cracking the whip on mistakes, inadvertent errors or lapses, but by persuasive reasoning so that the similar errors and mistakes are not repeated by the judicial officers. V. Majesty of the court would be enhanced by practising discipline and self-restraint in discharging of all judicial functions. All actions of a Judge must be judicious in character. VI. The role of superior courts is like a friend, philosopher and guide of the judiciary subordinate to it. The judicial officers have to be treated with parental care and affection. VII. The approach of the superior courts ought to be correctional and not to be intended to harm or ruining the judicial career of the officers. VIII. The superior courts should always bear in mind that the judicial officer is not before it and should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures, derogatory remarks and scathing criticism. The passing of such an order without affording a hearing to the judicial officer is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. IX. The superior courts should always keep in mind that disparaging and derogatory remarks against the judicial officer would cause incalculable harm of a permanent character having the potentiality of spoiling the judicial career of the officer concerned. Even if those remarks are expunged, it would not completely restitute and restore the harmed Judge from the loss of dignity and honour suffered by him. Even if those remarks are expunged, it would not completely restitute and restore the harmed Judge from the loss of dignity and honour suffered by him. X. The superior courts should convey its messages to the judicial officers concerned through a process of reasoning, highlighting the correct provisions of law, precedents and proper analysis of evidence and material on record, but rarely by passing harsh and derogatory remarks. XI. The superior courts must always keep in mind that it is a Herculean task for the judicial officer to get the derogatory remarks expunged by the superior court. He is compelled to take assistance from lawyers and such a practitioner may be appearing before him. It is embarrassing, humiliating, time-consuming and an expensive exercise. XII. The superior courts must always keep in mind that the much cherished judicial independence must not be presented only from outside but from within, by those who form the integral part of the judicial system. Damage from within has much larger and greater potential for harm than danger from outside. We alone in the judicial family can take care of it. XIII. The superior courts should not use strong, derogatory, disparaging and carping language while criticising the judicial officers. They must always keep in mind that, like all other human beings, the judicial officers are also not infallible. Any remarks passed against them may result in incalculable harm resulting in grave injustice. XIV. The superior court's Judges should not be, like a loose cannon, ready to inflict indiscriminate damages whenever they function in judicial capacity. XV. The superior courts' should keep in mind that infliction of uncalled for, unmerited and undeserved remarks clearly amount to abuse of the process of the court. XVI. The superior courts' should not allow themselves even momentarily the latitude of ignoring judicial precaution and propriety. XVII. It must be remembered that the subordinate judicial officers at times work under charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks and more correctly up to their nostrils. XVIII. To err is human and no one is infallible. A Judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. Judicial decorum has to be maintained at all times and even where criticism is justified. XVIII. To err is human and no one is infallible. A Judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. Judicial decorum has to be maintained at all times and even where criticism is justified. It must be in a language of utmost restraint always keeping in view that the person making the comment is also fallible. XIX. Judges of the superior courts have a duty and obligation to ensure judicial discipline and respect for judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when Judges at the lower level are criticised intemperately and castigated publicly. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges and provides for appeals and revisions. XX. It is the duty and obligation of the Judges of the superior courts to ensure that independence of judiciary is not compromised and every judicial officer should feel that he can freely and fearlessly give expression to his own opinion. This is absolutely imperative in maintaining the independence of the judiciary. XXI. The superior courts' Judges must always bear in mind that no greater damage can be caused to the administration of justice and to the confidence of people when Judges at superior courts express lack of faith either in ability or integrity of subordinate Judges." 7. Reference may also be made to the judgment in the case of Awani Kumar Upadhyay Vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and others, 2013 (12) SCC 392 . In the case of Awani Kumar (supra) while the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia observed as hereunder:- “11. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides appeals and revisions. Inasmuch as the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charges atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure and they do not have the facilities which are available in the higher courts, we are of the view that the remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put forth his reasonings. Further, if the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers and its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order, request for expunging those remarks are to be allowed. Further, if the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers and its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order, request for expunging those remarks are to be allowed. We, once again, reiterate that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against judicial officers and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the courts of law unless it is really for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof." 8. This Court is considering an application, filed by the Judge, who passed the impugned judgment and order. In the instant appeal notices were issued to the respondent against Delay Condonation Application and on the admission of the appeal vide order dated 22.04.2014. Service of notices has never been affected upon the respondent. It was noted by the office on 23.03.2017 concluding para of this office report is as hereunder:- “Till date no information has been received in this registry regarding the service of notice upon the respondent." 9. On 22.04.2014, appeal was admitted. Court observed in its order dated 22.04.2014 that despite service upon respondent, no one is appearing on his behalf. It may be noted here that the service was not sufficient upon the respondent on that date. Not only this, service is not sufficient even till date upon the respondent. On 24.05.2019, the office has reported with regard to service, as hereunder:- “A letter has been received from Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India regarding service upon Abid Ali @ Asad Ali @ Ajit Singh @ Abu Bakar ————— Lahore, Pakistan. Which indicates that service is still awaited upon Abid Ali and the same is kept in the part A of the record." 10. Further, a letter No. 25012/07/2014-Legal Cell (84) dated 29.05.2019 from under Secretary, Government of India, was received to the Registrar of this Court alongwith a letter of High Commission of India Islamabad to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabad. It reveals that service report is still awaited in this regard. 11. It clearly reveals that service has not been sufficient upon the respondent. This Court in its order dated 11.12.2017, in Para No. 16, observed that service is sufficient upon the respondent. It reveals that service report is still awaited in this regard. 11. It clearly reveals that service has not been sufficient upon the respondent. This Court in its order dated 11.12.2017, in Para No. 16, observed that service is sufficient upon the respondent. This para is as hereunder:- “Appeal was preferred before this Court against the order passed by Second Additional Session Judge and notices were issued to the respondent at the given address of Pakistan. Notices have been served through Union of India, which was received by the respondent in Pakistan. But he is not appearing before this Court." (emphasis supplied) 12. The facts quoted hereinbefore, reveals that, in fact, service was not affected upon the respondent and Indian Commission at Islamabad has been reminding to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabd, in this regard. It appears that this fact was not properly presented before the Court on 11.12.2017. 13. In Para No. 15 of the order dated 11.12.2017, this Court observed, inter-alia, that the Judge did not take care of the address and the name of the accused person, while recording the address of the accused in his judgment. 14. The appeal in which impugned judgment and order has been passed was presented by the respondent from jail. This appeal was forwarded by the Superintendent of District jail Haridwar and it was registered on 21.01.2013. The memo of appeal, as forwarded by the Superintendent of District jail Haridwar, records the name of the respondent and his registration number in the jail along with his address in Pakistan. 15. It is true that in the impugned judgment and order respondent's address is recorded as registration number in district jail Haridwar but it is also true that in the impugned judgment, itself, in Para No. 3, there is an address of the respondent as Son of Barkat Ali, Resident of 22, Shahpeer Gate Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. In the same Para no. 3, of the impugned judgment, there is another address of the respondent as resident of Mohalla Hazarat Baba Haji Shah Salim, Village Hazzarwal at Police Station Thhokar Niyaz Beg, Post Office Mansoora, District Lahore, Pakistan. As stated hereinbefore, this address was also mentioned by the Superintendent of District jail Haridwar, in the memo of appeal which, he forwarded on 19.01.2013. 3, of the impugned judgment, there is another address of the respondent as resident of Mohalla Hazarat Baba Haji Shah Salim, Village Hazzarwal at Police Station Thhokar Niyaz Beg, Post Office Mansoora, District Lahore, Pakistan. As stated hereinbefore, this address was also mentioned by the Superintendent of District jail Haridwar, in the memo of appeal which, he forwarded on 19.01.2013. In Para No. 4 of the impugned judgment, it is recorded that respondent revealed his birth place in Village Bhattawala, District Yamunanagar, Haryana. It reveals that more than one addresses of the respondent were recorded in the impugned judgment and order. At this stage much of the discussion on any aspect of the matter is not desired. 16. It is also evident that the Judge was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, in this matter before passing order dated 11.12.2017. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the observations which have been made against the Judge, who passed the impugned judgment and order deserves to be expunged. Hence, all the observations which have been made with regard to the Judge, by this Court in its order dated 11.12.2017 are expunged. They shall no more be a part of the service record of the Judge. 18. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of this Court. 19. Miscellaneous Application IA No. 9359 of 2018 is allowed accordingly.