Ratish Kumar Garg vs The High Court Of Judicature For ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7402 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6035/2021

Ratish Kumar Garg S/o R.b. Agarwal, Aged About 53 Years, Gali Maliyan Mandi Ramdas, District Mathura (U.p.)

----Petitioner Versus

The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur, Through The Registrar General.

                                                                        ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr Rakesh Arora
                                   Mr Hardik Gautam
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr Mr Aniket Tater



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

                                    Judgment

20/09/2023 (PER HON'BLE VIJAY BISHNOI, J.)

1. The petitioner, who is a member of Rajasthan Judicial

Service, has filed this writ petition with a prayer to expunge the

adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Report for the

year 2014-I so also to set aside the communication dated

26.02.2020, whereby the representation filed by him for

expunging/upgrading the adverse remarks made in his ACR for

the year 2014-I has been rejected.

2. The petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of

Judicial Magistrate on 08.02.1996. He was promoted to the post of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Division)

on 06.08.2002 and thereafter in the month of April, 2014, he was

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (2 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

promoted to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service,

however, vide letter dated 10.12.2015, he was reverted back to

the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service.

3. The petitioner was in receipt of letter dated 04.09.2015,

whereby the remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2014 were

communicated to him. Copy of the letter dated 04.09.2015 is

reproduced hereunder:

"CONFIDENTIAL

REGISTERED

No.PA/RG/5(1)/2015/1715 Date: 4/9/15

From:

The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

To:

Shri Ratish Kumar Garg Addl. District & Sessions Judge.

Chhabra (Baran)

Sub: Communication of remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2014 - regarding.

Sir, I am directed to inform you that the following remarks have been recorded in your Annual Confidential Report(s) for the year 2014 :-

"2014-I: Integrity of the officer- Doubtful. If he is fair and impartial in dealing with the Public and the Bar- No. Capacity of handle file systematically - Does not capable to handle file systematically without taking evidence passes full trial judgements on order sheets itself.

Whether judgments on facts and law are on the whole, sound, well reasoned and expressed in good language - No. most of the judgments are based on confession. (List of full trial judgments enclosed) Whether the disposal of work is adequate -- Yes. But most of work done is on the basis of confession and shown as full trial judgments.

Control over the office and administrative capacity and tact.-He is tactful but not having good

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (3 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

administrative control over the office since his return no.5(Part I) was not based on correct figures (enclosed a copy herewith).

Capacity to control the proceedings in court, with firmness and follow the procedure prescribed by law- He has not followed the procedure prescribed by law and delivered full trial judgments only on order sheets without taking or recording the evidence (A list of such judgments is enclosed.). Below Average. On the basis of work done by Shri Ratish Kumar Garg it reflects that the integrity of the officer is doubtful (Integrity certificate withheld). I find no reason to differ from the views expressed by the D.J., apart from it I called for certain judgments for perusal quality of judgments is poor. 2014-II - Very Good."

4. In the ACR for the year 2014-I, the Reporting Officer graded

the performance of the petitioner as "Below Average". The

Inspecting Judge-cum-Administrative Judge concurred with the

view expressed by the Reporting Officer, however, additionally

observed that apart from the above assessment of the petitioner

by the Reporting Officer, after perusal of the judgments delivered

by the petitioner, the quality of the judgments delivered by the

petitioner are found to be poor. Hon'ble the then Chief Justice

concurred with the above assessment.

5. After receiving the communication in respect of the ACR for

the year 2014, the petitioner filed a representation with a prayer

for expunging/upgrading the adverse remarks made in the ACR for

the year 2014-I, however, the said representation came to be

rejected solely on the ground that it was time barred.

6. Being aggrieved with the rejection of the representation, the

petitioner preferred D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11353/2017, which

came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide

judgment dated 22.01.2019 while observing that the rejection of

the petitioner's representation by the respondent on the ground of

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (4 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

delay, is not tenable because the respondent did not intimate the

petitioner about the limitation period for filing the representation.

It was observed by the Division Bench that had the Registrar

General intimated the petitioner about the limitation period for

filing the representation against the adverse remarks made in the

ACR, the petitioner would have perhaps filed the representation in

time. The Division Bench while allowing the writ petition filed by

the petitioner has directed the respondents to decide the

petitioner's representation afresh on merits within a period of

three months. Pursuant to that, the representation filed by the

petitioner was considered afresh by a Sub-Committee of two

Judges on merits, however, the same was rejected and the

petitioner was informed about the rejection of his representation

vide letter dated 26.02.2020.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

respondent has erred in rejecting the representation filed by the

petitioner for expunging/upgrading the adverse remarks made in

the ACR for the year 2014-I. It is submitted that the adverse

remarks made by the concerned District Judge in the ACR for the

year 2014-I are without any basis. It is further submitted that to

the best of knowledge of the petitioner, there was never any

complaint regarding the working of the petitioner either by the Bar

or litigants and in such circumstances, the remarks made by the

Reporting Officer in the ACR for the year 2014-I are unwarranted.

8. It is stated that the petitioner was never served with a notice

regarding his working at any point of time. It is also submitted

that the District Judge concerned remained the Reporting Officer

for a period of four months only and she never inspected the

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (5 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

Court presided over by the petitioner at any point of time and in

such circumstances, the remarks made by her regarding integrity,

capacity to handle files, judgments and control over the office and

administrative capacity are imaginary. It is further submitted that

the Reporting Officer has not disclosed any material on the basis

of which, the integrity of the petitioner was found doubtful. It is

further submitted that the Reporting Officer has reported that the

petitioner is not fair and impartial in dealing with the public,

however, she has failed to disclose any complaint against the

petitioner either by the Bar, litigants or public.

9. It is also submitted that the Reporting Officer is factually

incorrect in reporting that the petitioner was not capable to handle

files systematically and he delivered full trial judgments on order-

sheets itself without recording any evidence. It is contended that

no judgment was passed by the petitioner without taking evidence

and only in those cases, where compromise took place between

the parties and no evidence was required to be recorded, were

decided on order sheets. It is further submitted that the Reporting

Officer was also wrong in reporting that the judgments passed by

the petitioner were not on facts and law or well reasoned. It is

contended that during the period from January, 2014 to April,

2014, the petitioner passed 156 full trial judgments that too on

merits and out of those 156 judgments, only 13 were passed on

the basis of confession, which relate to petty nature, particularly

accident cases, wherein the prosecution evidence was almost

completed and the parties compromised in relation to

compoundable offences. It is further submitted that four civil

suites were decided on the basis of compromise and 214 main

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (6 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

criminal cases of petty nature were decided in the spirit of Lok

Adalat and Mega Lok Adalat.

10. It is also contended that the Reporting Officer was not right

in observing that the petitioner had no control over the office and

his administrative capacity was poor. Learned counsel has argued

that there was no material available with the Reporting Officer,

which shows that the control of the petitioner was not good and it

was only on account of administrative control, the petitioner was

able to dispose of cases at the rate of 289.99% for the period

from 1st January 2014 to 31st March, 2014 and at the rate of

302.26% for the period running from 01 st April, 2014 to 30th April,

2014.

11. Learned counsel has further argued that the respondent

without appreciating the above referred contentions of the

petitioner, made in the representation, has rejected the same in

mechanical manner that too by non-speaking order. It is also

contended that before rejecting the representation of the

petitioner, the respondent did not call for the response of the

District Judge, who made the said adverse remarks, in the ACR for

the year 2014-I. It is contended that Single Bench of this Court in

Tek Chand vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,

Jodhpur, 1994(2) WLC (Raj.) 688 has specifically held that it is

necessary that before deciding the representation of a judicial

officer in relation to adverse remarks, a response of Reporting

Officer has to be called.

12. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for

the petitioner has prayed that this writ petition may kindly be

allowed and the adverse remarks made in the ACR for the year

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (7 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

2014-I and the letter dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure-8) may kindly

be quashed and set aside.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

S.Ramchandra Raju vs. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC

424; Sukhdeo vs. Commissioner Amravati Division,

Amravati and Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 103 and in Registrar

General, High Court of Patna vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad

and Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 357 and the decision of Division Bench

of this Court in Bhanwar Lal Lamror vs. State of Rajasthan

and Ors., (2014) 2 RLW 1507. He has also placed reliance on a

decision of learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in

Shankarlal Soni vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

MANU/RH/0145/2016.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while

defending the writ petition has argued that scope of judicial review

in the matters of recording of adverse remarks is very limited and

it is settled that the High Court should not interfere except in

exceptional cases.

15. It is also argued by learned counsel for the respondent that

the Reporting Officer has rightly made adverse remarks in the ACR

for the year 2014-I after considering the material available with

her. It is submitted that the remarks about the integrity of the

petitioner was made by the Reporting Officer on the basis of his

performance, which was not satisfactory. It is also submitted that

the Reporting Officer, after examining the judgments passed by

the petitioner and other material such as disposal register etc.,

made adverse remarks because the judgments delivered by him

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (8 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

were based on confessions but shown as full trial judgments. The

Reporting Officer has rightly observed that the petitioner was not

having good administrative control because return submitted by

him was not based on correct figures. It is further submitted that

as the Reporting Officer has made adverse remark about the

integrity of the officer on the basis of work done by him, in such

circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no basis for

recording the adverse remarks against the petitioner.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted

that Sub-Committee of the Judges in its meeting considered the

representation filed by the petitioner and observed that the

Inspecting Judge-cum-Administrative Judge has concurred with

the opinion of the Reporting Officer and additionally it was

recorded that the quality of judgments delivered by the petitioner

are poor and the same has been concurred by the then Hon'ble

Chief Justice. The Sub-Committee has, therefore, rightly

recommended for rejection of the representation on the basis of

material available on record and its decision cannot be said to be

bad. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted

that it is settled that while rejecting the representation on

administrative side, reasons are not required to be recorded.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the

petitioner in the writ petition has stated wrong facts that during

his entire service, no adverse remark has ever been recorded

against him. It is argued that as a matter of fact in the ACRs for

the years 2004-2005 (Part-II) and 2009-2010 (Part-I), the

performance of the petitioner is recorded as 'Average'. It is further

submitted that the petitioner was served with a warning in July,

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (9 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

2010 and the representation filed by him against the adverse

remarks in the ACR for the year 2010-I has already been rejected.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent, has, therefore, argued

that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, no case for

interference is made out and the writ petition filed by the

petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Rajendra

Singh Verma (Dead) through L.Rs vs. Governor of NCT of

Delhi & Ors., MANU/SC/1071/2011. He has also placed

reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court rendered in High

Court of Delhi vs. Purshottam Das Gupta and Ors.,

MANU/DE/0089/2001 and the decision of Allahabad High Court

in Prem Chand Azad vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice, High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors.,

MANU/UP/1572/2006.

20. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

21. Before going into the merits of the case, we would like to

clarify that there is very limited scope of judicial review in the

matter of adverse entries in the ACR of an employee and the same

can be interfered in case the adverse entry has been made

arbitrarily or because of malafide. At the same time, it is settled

that ACR plays an important and significant role in the

assessment, evaluation and formation of opinion regarding a

judicial officer. The ACR of an officer holds supreme importance in

ascertaining his/her conduct and is also required for shaping the

future career of an officer.

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (10 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

22. In the present case, the petitioner specifically came up with

a case that before making adverse remarks in the ACR for the

year 2014-I, the Reporting Officer had no material or reason to

make such adverse remarks. We are of the opinion that after

taking into consideration the entire material available on record, if

this Court comes to the conclusion that sufficient material was

available with the Reporting Officer to make adverse remarks in

the ACR, certainly this Court will not interfere in the matter,

however, if the court finds that the adverse remarks are based on

no material, then there is no reason not to interfere.

23. Taking into consideration the arguments of the learned

counsel the petitioner, we find that the challenge of the petitioner

is based mainly on three grounds, thus;

(i) the respondent has not recorded any reason while

recommending for rejection of the representation of the

petitioner;

(ii) before rejecting the representation of the petitioner, comments

from the Reporting Officer were not called; and

(iii) no material was available with the Reporting Officer, which

leads to make adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2014-I of

the petitioner.

24. So far as the first ground of the petitioner that the decision

of the committee is liable to be set aside on the ground that the

same does not provide reasons is concerned, we are of the opinion

that the same does not have any merit.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. E.G.

Namudiri, MANU/SC/0434/1996, has held as under:

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (11 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

"In the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries the competent authority is not under any obligation to record reasons. But the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily, he must act in a fair and just manner. He is required to consider the questions raised by the Government servant and examine the same, in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer countersigning the same. If the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons."

26. In Syed T.A. Naqshbandi and Ors. vs. State of Jammu

and Kashmir and Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 592, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

"The absence of reasons in the order rejecting the representations or the original resolution granting selection grade/super-time scale, in the nature of proceedings themselves cannot be said to be an infirmity. The noting in the files dealing with those aspects would be sufficient record and the proceedings in the form of resolutions cannot be expected to be in the format of a judicial order dealing with each and every claim."

27. So far as second ground raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that before rejecting the representation of the

petitioner, the Sub-Committee did not call for the comments of the

Reporting Officer on the representation filed by him is concerned,

we have gone through the record and found that while making

adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2014 of the petitioner,

the Reporting Officer had relied on certain material, which is being

annexed with the report. We are of the opinion that if the

Reporting Officer has placed on record the material, on the basis

of which adverse remarks in the ACR have been made, then in

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (12 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

such circumstances, it is not necessary to call for the comments of

the Reporting Officer before deciding the representation of an

employee against those remarks and it is always open for the

Court to examine whether the adverse remarks are justified on

the basis of the said material. In such circumstances, the second

ground of the petitioner has not impressed us, hence, the same is

rejected.

28. Though in the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that

prior to 2014, there was no adverse remark in the ACRs of the

petitioner during his entire service career of 25 years, however,

the respondent has refuted the said claim of the petitioner and

has specifically averred in its reply that the petitioner was graded

as 'Average' in the year 2004-2005-II and 2009-2010-I. It is also

stated by the respondent that vide letter dated 15.07.2010, the

petitioner was warned and directed to be careful in future in

deciding the matters in accordance with the legal provisions and

settled principles of law. It is also stated that the representation

filed by the petitioner with a prayer for expunging adverse

remarks in the ACR for the year 2010-I was also rejected.

29. In rejoinder, the petitioner has claimed that so far as ACRs

for the year 2004-05-II are concerned, the same has never been

communicated to him. In respect of ACR 2010-I, the case of the

petitioner is that the representation against the said ACR has

wrongly been rejected. It is noticed that in respect of the warning

issued to the petitioner on 15.07.2010, the petitioner has not

disputed the same.

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (13 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

30. Now we examine that the adverse remarks made by the

Reporting Officer, in the ACR for 2014-I of the petitioner are based

on sufficient material or not.

 It is noticed that in support of the adverse remarks made in

the ACR for the year 2014, the Reporting Officer has annexed four

documents, which were forwarded with the following forwarding

letter:

Jh jrh"k dqekj xxZ] vkjts,l dh fnukad 01-01-2014 ls 30-04-2014 rd dh ,-lh-vkj esa dh xbZ fVIi.kh;ksa ds izek.k Lo:i layXu nLrkostkr~ dh lwphA Ø-l- nLrkostkr~ dk C;kSjk lqlaxrrk Ekku0 jkt0 mPp ,-lh-vkj- ds ikVZ I dkWye U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj dk i= uacj 14 esa nh xbZ xyr 1-

                    Øekad        923    fnukad lwpuk ds lanaHkZ esa
                    22-04-14

fjVuZ uacj 5 ikVZ I esa fn, ,-lh-vkj- ds dkWye uacj ikVZ 2- x, ØsfMV o mldh tkWp II dkWye uacj 8 esa dh xbZ ds i"pkr~ ik;k x;k vUrj fVIi.kh ds laca/k esa fjVuZ uacj 5 ikVZ I] tks ,-lh-vkj- ds ikVZ II dkWye 3- lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ls iqu% uacj 8 esa dh xbZ fVIi.kh ds rS;kj djok;k x;k laca/k esa iw.kZ rgdhdkr~ esa fuf.kZr IkkVZ II dkWye uacj 6 o 9 esa izdj.kksa dh lwph jkthukek o tweZ LohdkjksfDr esa fd, x, izdj.kksa fu.kZ; ,oa 4-

laf{kIr fopkj.k ls fuf.kZr izdj.kksa dks iw.kZ rgdhdkr~ esa nf"kZr fd;k tkus ds laca/k esa

31. The Reporting Officer has pointed out that the petitioner has

furnished wrong information in column No.14 of Part-I of ACR.

Column No.14 of Part-I of the ACR reads as under;

"Is there any audit objection pending, if so, since when and what measures you have taken to meet the said objection?"

 In response to the above question, the petitioner has

answered 'No', however, the Reporting Officer has annexed the

letter of the Registrar (Administration) dated 22.04.2014 and

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (14 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

pointed out that the audit objection was pending but the petitioner

has furnished incorrect information that no audit objection was

pending. The Reporting Officer has also observed that the credit of

disposal work claimed by the petitioner in column No.8 of Part-II

of the ACR is also incorrect. The concerning Clerk, on the basis of

disposal registers, evaluated the disposal of the cases by marking

with red ink and also made a note at the bottom of Return No.5

(Part-I), which indicates that there is difference between the

credit claimed and actual credit. The note made by the concerned

Clerk reads as under:

"esjs }kjk QkStnkjh QSly jftLVjks ds vk/kkj ij

x.kuk dj yky L;kgh ls vafdr fd;k x;k

Sd-

¼o-fy-½ ls"ku DydZ D. J. Court Dungarpur"

 The Reporting Officer has pointed out that the petitioner has

claimed number of working days for the period running from

01.01.2014-31.03.2014 as 194.30, whereas actual days come to

168.82. It is also observed by the Reporting Officer that for the

above period, the total work disposal is claimed by the petitioner

as 289.99%, whereas the actual work disposal comes to

251.97%. Similarly for the period running from 01.04.2014 to

30.04.214, the Reporting Officer has observed that the petitioner

has claimed working days as 45.34 instead of 39.75 and has

claimed work disposal as 302.26% instead of 265%. The

Reporting Officer has also annexed lists of the cases decided by

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (15 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

the petitioner on the basis of compromise and confessions for the

period running from 01.01.2014 to 30.04.2014.

32. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the Reporting Officer never inspected the Court presided by

the petitioner from 01.01.2014 to 30.04.2014 and, therefore, the

remark made by the Reporting Officer to the effect that the

petitioner has no control over the office and administrative

capacity is without any basis. In the representation also, the

petitioner has highlighted that the Reporting Officer never

inspected the court at any point of time from 01.01.2014 to

30.04.2014.

33. From the record, we found that the aforesaid contention of

the learned counsel is abundantly false. In the record, a sudden

inspection report dated 25.01.2014, sent by the Reporting Officer

to High Court, is available and from the same, it is evident that

the Reporting Officer had conducted a sudden inspection of the

Court of the petitioner on 25.01.2014. In the said sudden

inspection report, the Reporting Officer has observed that on

25.01.2014 in daily cause list, 58 cases were listed, whereas from

perusal of Peshi Register, it appears that in 65 cases the date was

fixed as 25.01.2014. The Reporting Officer had instructed that the

cause list be affixed on notice board after comparing with the

Peshi Register. Certain other observations are also made in the

said report but not adverse to the petitioner.

34. Having gone through the above material, we are of the view

that it cannot be said that the adverse remarks made by the

Reporting Officer in ACR for the year 2014-I are without any basis

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (16 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

or based on no material. The above deficiencies pointed out by the

Reporting Officer are not minor and reflecting that working of the

petitioner during the relevant period was casual and irresponsible.

If the information provided in the ACR by a Officer is incorrect or

false then in such circumstances, it is the duty of the Reporting

Officer to take note of it and to access the performance of the

officer correctly. We are of the opinion that in the above noted

facts and circumstances, the adverse remarks made by the officer

are fully justified.

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature of

Bombay vs. Shashikant S.Patil and Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 416,

highlighting a marked and significant difference between a judicial

service and other services, has held as under:

"23. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority, unlike the bureaucracy or the members of the other service. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the Judges merely employees. They exercise sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility. If a judicial officer 'tips the scales of justice its rippling effect would be disastrous and deleterious'. A dishonest judicial personage is an oxymoron."

36. It is also noticed that before accessing the performance of

the officer, P.S. to the Inspecting Judge-cum-Administrative Judge

sent a communication to the Registrar General for supplying the

copies of judgment of the petitioner for relevant period. In

response to that, the Registrar General supplied eight judgments

(two of each months) from January, 2014 to April, 2014.

Thereafter P.S. to Inspecting Judge-cum-Administrative Judge

forwarded the ACR of the petitioner to Registrar General. From

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (17 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

the above, it is clear that the Inspecting Judge-cum-Administrative

Judge after perusing the judgments passed by the petitioner has

made remarks in the ACR for the year 2014-I.

37. Much emphasis is laid by the counsel for the petitioner on

the fact that for the year 2014-II, the performance of the

petitioner is graded as 'Very Good'. It is argued that this fact itself

is sufficient to presume that adverse remarks in ACR for the year

2014-I are baseless or based on no material.

38. One of the purposes of recording the ACRs of an officer

periodically is that after judging his/her performance, if it is found

that there is some deficiency in working, it may be communicated

to the officer concerned so as to give him/her a choice to improve

performance, conduct or character in respect of which adverse

remarks have been made. On the other hand, if the performance

of the officer is very good/good or satisfactory then also the

officer is motivated to continue the work with much dedication and

zeal.

39. In the case of the petitioner, it may happen that after having

knowledge about some adversity in his ACR, the petitioner

improved his performance in the later part of year 2014 and

therefore, he was graded 'Very Good'. It is not the case of the

petitioner that the Reporting Officer has made the adverse

remarks due to malafide.

40. We have already held that the order passed by the

respondent of rejecting the representation of the petitioner cannot

be interfered with only on the ground that it contains no reasons,

however, for our satisfaction, we have scrutinized the record and

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (18 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

found that the representation of the petitioner was decided by a

Sub-Committee of two Judges. Before deciding the said

representation, the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court

had requisitioned certain information from the A.C.J.M. Court,

Sagwara (Dungarpur) vide letter dated 02.07.2019. Copy of the

letter dated 02.07.2019 is reproduced hereunder:

"CONFIDENTIAL

No.PA/RG/6(6)/2016/2243 Date : 02.07.2019

From:

The Registrar General Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur To:

The ACJM, Sagwara (Dungarpur).

Sub: Requisition of pendency and institution of Civil & Criminal Original Cases - regarding.

Sir, I am directed to request you to supply the following information with regard to Shri Ratish Kumar Garg, who remained posted as ACJM, Sagwara, Dungarpur at the relevant period:-

1. Number of original cases (Civil & Criminal separately) pending at the time of taking over the charge.

2. Number of original Civil & Criminal cases instituted up to 30.04.2014, during his tenure yearwise.

3. Number of only such original cases (Civil & Criminal) disposed of after full trial in his tenure up to 30.04.2014, in which he himself framed the charges and issues.

4. Number of original cases (Civil & Criminal) disposed of after full trial in his tenure up to 30.04.2014 (yearwise), from amongst oldest 12 cases of each category with the stage of each case at the time of taking over the charge.

5. Comparative statement of work of the concerned Officer in his tenure up to 30.04.2014 (yearwise), and his predecessor for the preceding year or for contemporary period as per format prescribed for the same (copy enclosed)."

This may kindly be treated as MOST URGENT.

Yours sincerely,

Sd-

REGISTRAR GENERAL"

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (19 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

41. The information sought by the Registrar General was duly

received from the ACJM Court on 04.07.2019 and the same was

placed before the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee after

considering the said material recommended for rejection of the

representation of the petitioner in its meeting dated 04.02.2020.

The relevant minutes of meeting of the Sub-Committee are

reproduced as under:

"49. SHRI RATISH KUMAR GARG-ACJM

The representation is made by the Officer for upgradation of his ACR for the year 2014 for the period from 1.1.14 to 30.4.14. There are many adverse remarks including the remark of doubtful integrity is recorded in the ACR of the Officer for the period in question. The representation made by the Officer against the adverse remarks communicated was rejected by the Administrative Committee accepting the recommendations of the Sub- Committee, rejected the representation as barred by time. Aggrieved thereby, the Officer preferred a writ petition before High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 22.1.19 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11353/17 and the representation made by the Officer was directed to be decided afresh on merits.

Precisely, the stand of the officer is that during the period of question the District Judge did not make inspection of his Court. The various adverse remark recorded are without any basis. The work disposal percentage of the officer during the period in question was 389.99%. For the later part of 2014, the Officer has been graded as 'Very Good'.

It is noticed that Inspecting Judge/Administrative Judge while concurring with the view expressed by the Reporting Officer has further opined that the judgments of the Officer are of poor quality. The Chief Justice has concurred with the remark recorded as aforesaid.

Thus, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances noticed above and taking into consideration the overall performance of the Officer, the Sub-Committee recommends to reject the representation."

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (20 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

42. From the above noted facts, it is clear that the Sub-

Committee after seeking relevant information regarding the

petitioner and taking into consideration overall performance of the

petitioner has decided the representation of the petitioner. We are

satisfied that the Sub-Committee after considering the material

available with it has rightly observed that taking into consideration

the overall performance of the petitioner his representation

deserves rejection.

43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. vs. S.Sree

Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 has held as under:

"7.... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."

44. In Syed T.A.Naqshbandi vs. State of J & K (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"7. ... As has often been reiterated by this Court, judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself, as such. Critical or independent analysis or appraisal of the materials by the courts exercising powers of judicial review unlike the case of an appellate court, would neither be permissible nor conducive to the interests of either the officers concerned or the system and institutions of

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (21 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

administration of justice with which we are concerned in this case, by going into the correctness as such of ACRs or the assessment made by the Committee and approval accorded by the Full Court of the High Court."

45. In Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through L.Rs vs.

Governor of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

"122. Normally, the adverse entry reflecting on the integrity would be based on formulations of Impressions which would be result of multiple factors simultaneously playing in the mind. Though the perceptions may differ in the very nature of things there is a difficulty nearing an impossibility in subjecting the entries in the confidential rolls to judicial review. Sometimes, if the general reputation of an employee is not good though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be compulsorily retired in public interest. The duty conferred on the appropriate authority to consider the question of continuance of a judicial officer beyond a particular age is an absolute one. If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a constitutional function is exercised on the administrative side of the High Court, any judicial review thereon should be made only with great care and circumspection and it must be confined strictly to the parameters set by this Court in several reported decisions."

 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has further

held as under:

124. From the admitted facts noted earlier it is evident that there was first a report of the Inspecting Judge to the effect that he had received complaints against the Appellants reflecting on their integrity. It would not be correct to presume that the Inspecting Judge had written those remarks in a casual or whimsical manner. It has to be legitimately presumed that the Inspecting Judge, before making such remarks of serious nature, acted responsibly.

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (22 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

Thereafter, the Full Court considered the entire issue and endorsed the view of the Inspecting Judge while recording the ACR of the Appellants. It is a matter of common knowledge that the complaints which are made against a judicial officer, orally or in writing are dealt with by the Inspecting Judge or the High Court with great caution. Knowing that most of such complaints are frivolous and by disgruntled elements, there is generally a tendency to discard them. However, when the suspicion arises regarding integrity of a judicial officer, whether on the basis of complaints or information received from other sources and a committee is formed to look into the same, as was done in the instant case and the committee undertakes the task by gathering information from various sources as are available to it, on the basis of which a perception about the concerned judicial officer is formed, it would be difficult for the Court either under Article 226 or for this Court under Article 32 to interfere with such an exercise. Such an opinion and impression formed consciously and rationally after the enquiries of the nature mentioned above would definitely constitute material for recording adverse report in respect of an officer. Such an impression is not readily formed but after Court's circumspection, deliberation, etc. and thus it is a case of preponderance of probability for entertaining a doubt about integrity of an official which is based on substance, matter, information etc. Therefore, the contention that without material or basis the entries were recorded in the ACR of the Appellants cannot be upheld and is hereby rejected."

46 In Registrar General, High Court of Patna vs. Pandey

Gajendra Prasad and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held as under:

"14. In short, it is the constitutional mandate that every High Court must ensure that the subordinate judiciary functions within its domain and administers justice according to law, uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations. The members of the subordinate judiciary are not only under the control but also under the care and protection of the High Court. Undoubtedly, all the Judges of the High Court, collectively and individually, share that responsibility."

[2023:RJ-JD:28622-DB] (23 of 23) [CW-6035/2021]

47. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances and in

view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above referred cases, not much scope is left for us to interfere in

this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

48. No costs.

                                    (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J                                        (VIJAY BISHNOI),J



                                     masif/-D.R.









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)