Unwarranted Adverse Remarks Against Govt Servants Have Serious Impact On Their Career: Delhi HC Expunges Trial Court's Remarks Against ED

The ED/petitioner prayed for striking off certain remarks made by the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, in its order dated 05.10.2024.

In its order, the Special Judge stated that the even though there was enough time to initiate coercive steps against the absconding accused, the ED failed to do so and that it indicated foul play. The Judge said that the Assistant Director deliberately wanted to give benefit to the accused and asked the Director to file a detailed report.

In next order, the Judge noted that the report was filed and stated that it reflected poorly upon the ED. It remarked that the ED was showing complete apathy to its observations and summoned the Director.

A single judge bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that merely because the ED filed the complaint without tracing or arresting the accused, that in itself was not aground for assuming that the ED did not investigating the case properly.

The Court observed that the custody of an accused can be sought even after filing of a chargesheet or complaint. It referred to Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI (2007), where the Supreme Court held that the Investigating Officer need not await the presence of absconding accused to file a charge-sheet against him.

It further referred to State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548), where the Supreme Court observed that while the court would be justified in securing the presence of officers of state who patently disregarded the directions issued by it,such a practice should not be adopted as a routine. It observed that insisting on the presence of officers in court wastes precious time that could be spent in the discharge of their duties.

The Court remarked that “Furthermore, it needs no emphasis, that adverse remarks made by a court against government servants have a serious deleterious impact on their official record and on their careers, especially if such remarks are unwarranted or unjustified.”

The Court thus expunged the observations made the Special Judge against the ED and its officer.

Case title: Directorate Of Enforcement vs. Lakshay Vij And Ors. (CRL.M.C. 8399/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32063, CRL.M.A. 32064/2024)