Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Katara vs High Court Of Jud. For Raj. At Jodhpur, ... on 23 November, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Nupur Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:40442-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6765/2015
Rakesh Katara S/o late Shri Ram Dayal Katara, age 54 years,
Resident of 4/222, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
Presently: posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chomehala, District Jhalawar.
----Petitioner
Versus
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, Through:
The Registrar General
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
23/11/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
of the communications dated 13.06.2012 (Annex.1) and
17.11.2014 (Annex.5), whereby he has been communicated
adverse Annual Confidential Report ('ACR') for the year 2010 and
his representation against the said adverse ACR has been
rejected, respectively. Further prayer has been made that adverse
remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2010 be expunged.
2. The petitioner, an Officer in Rajasthan Judicial Service, was
communicated adverse ACR by communication dated 13.06.2012
(Annex.1) for the year 2010 as 'Integrity doubtful. Average'. He
was provided opportunity to make a representation. The petitioner
[2023:RJ-JD:40442-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-6765/2015]
made a representation qua the adverse remarks and sought
inspection. He was provided inspection by the respondent.
Whereafter, he filed a detailed representation, however, by
communication dated 17.11.2014 (Annex.5), he was informed
that his representation has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the
present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
petitioner has never been in receipt of adverse remarks in the
ACR(s) prior to 2010, however, the above adverse remarks was
communicated to him for the year 2010 and in subsequent years,
again he has been awarded 'good', 'very good' and 'very good' in
the ACR(s) for the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively.
4. Submissions have been made that the Reporting Authority
i.e. the District & Sessions Judge, for the year 2010, had given
'outstanding grading', the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge endorsed the
'outstanding grading', however, the Hon'ble Administrative Judge,
inter-alia, observed that enquiry(s) under Rules 16 and 17 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal),
Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958') were pending against the petitioner
and though his disposal was 162.86%, which falls in the category
of very good, he graded the petitioner as 'average', however, a
significant further remarks were made that, 'however, it is subject
to final outcome of two enquiry reports, which are as on date
pending against him with Registrar Vigilance at Jaipur.'
Whereafter, for the year 2010, the Hon'ble Chief Justice made the
remarks, 'Integrity doubtful. Average'.
5. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was
departmentally proceeded only in one enquiry under Rule 17 of
[2023:RJ-JD:40442-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-6765/2015]
the Rules of 1958 and the said enquiry was converted into that of
Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 for major punishment. On conclusion
of the enquiry, the petitioner was visited with penalty of stoppage
of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner filed D.B.C.W.P. No.6790/2015, which
came to be decided by this Court on 05.12.2016, whereby the
petition was allowed and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner
was quashed. Civil Appeal No.4253/2017 filed by High Court
before Hon'ble Supreme Court came to be dismissed on
23.03.2023.
6. It is submitted that once the Hon'ble Administrative Judge
had, while awarding the grading 'average' clearly made it subject
to final outcome of the enquiry, which was pending against the
petitioner and in the said enquiry based on judgment of this
Court, the petitioner has been exonerated, the said remark
'average' by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge as well as
consequential marks made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, regarding
'Integrity doubtful. Average', requires reconsideration/deletion.
7. Learned counsel emphasized that the remarks by the Hon'ble
Administrative Judge as well as Hon'ble Chief Justice were made
on account of allegations contained in the pending enquiry and
once the exoneration has taken place, the adverse remarks
deserve to be deleted.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-High Court made
submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner is
subsequent to rejection of his representation by the Hon'ble Sub
Committee for making recommendations to the Administrative
Committee on the representation submitted by the petitioner
[2023:RJ-JD:40442-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-6765/2015]
against the remarks recorded in his ACR and, therefore, insofar as
recording of adverse remarks as well as rejection of petitioner's
representation is concerned, the same cannot be faulted. Further
submissions were made that insofar as subsequent event
pertaining to his writ petition having been accepted by the Division
Bench and appeal filed by High Court having been rejected by the
Supreme Court is concerned, the same will have to be considered
by the appropriate authority, as the said material was not before
the authority while passing the order rejecting the representation
of the petitioner.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
10. The remark 'average' was made by the Hon'ble Administriave
Judge in the ACR for the year 2010 alongwith a qualification that
same was subject to final outcome of the enquiry, which was
pending against the petitioner. Once, the remark was made
subject to final outcome of the pending enquiry, as otherwise the
disposal of the petitioner fell in the category of 'very good', yet he
was graded as 'average', the outcome of the enquiry, which
attained finality with the acceptance of writ petition by the
Division Bench of this Court and dismissal of appeal, needs to be
given effect.
11. Hon'ble Chief Justice, apparently on account of nature of the
allegations, for which charge sheet was issued to the petitioner
and enquiry was pending against him, gave remark as 'integrity
doubtful' and reiterated 'average' as given by the Hon'ble
Administrative Judge. As before the Sub Committee, which
considered the representation made by the petitioner, apparently
[2023:RJ-JD:40442-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-6765/2015]
no additional material except for the representation made by the
petitioner, wherein he had only disputed the remarks made by the
Hon'ble Administrative Judge and the Hon'ble Chief Justice for
taking a different view. However, the fact now remains that in the
writ petition filed by the petitioner against imposition of penalty by
Full Court, based on the enquiry report, the same has been
allowed and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner quashed, the
petitioner exonerated and held entitled to all consequential
benefits. The appeal filed by High Court came to be rejected by
Hon'ble Supreme Court with the observations that it was not
convinced that appellant High Court has made out a case for
interference with the order passed by the Division Bench.
12. In view of above fact situation, wherein the fact of quashing
of order of penalty pursuant to departmental enquiry, has to be
considered, inter-alia, by way of directions given by the Division
Bench for grant of the consequential relief(s) and the fact that the
Hon'ble Administrative Judge made his remarks subject to
outcome of enquiry, we are firmly of the opinion that the issue on
the said aspect needs to be considered by the Sub Committee for
making recommendations to the Administrative Committee on the
representation submitted by the judicial officers against the
remarks recorded in their ACR(s).
13. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly
allowed. The rejection of petitioner's representation communicated
to him by order dated 17.11.2014 (Annex.5) is set aside and the
matter is remanded back for consideration by the Sub Committee,
based on the subsequent events, as noticed hereinbefore i.e. the
order passed by the Division Bench and dismissal of appeal filed
[2023:RJ-JD:40442-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-6765/2015]
by High Court in the light of the qualifying remarks made by the
Hon'ble Administrative Judge. The petitioner will be free to file a
fresh detailed representation on the said aspect including placing
the judgment of Division Bench and the order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court. It is expected that the issue will be redetermined
expeditiously.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
51-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
