Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and another

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 05.12.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 reverting the petitioner and 12 others from the post of A.D.J. To Civil Judge (S.D.) on the recommendation of the High Court. Copy of the order is Annexure 8 in which petitioner''s name finds place at sl. No. 9.

Petitioner was appointed as Munsif in May 1977 and confirmed on the said post in 1982. He was promoted to the post of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) by order dated 04.01.1990. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Higher Judicial Service (Additional District Judge) in May -June 1996. It appears that the promotion to H.J.S./A.D.J. was as stop gap arrangement (para 3 of the counter affidavit).

In the year 1996-97 petitioner was awarded adverse entry by the District Judge, Lalitpur where petitioner was posted at that time. The performance of the petitioner had been categorized as poor. The District Judge who awarded the adverse entry was District Judge of Lalitpur from 07.09.1996 to 31.03.1997. Against the award of the said adverse entry petitioner made a representation on 28.06.1997. True copy of the representation is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Copy of the remarks (entries in the declaration roll of the petitioner given by the District Judge) are Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The Inspecting Judge allowed the representation. The said order of Hon. Inspecting Judge was communicated by Joint Registrar to the petitioner through letter dated 21.10.1997 copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It is mentioned in the said letter that remarks recorded by the District Judge in column nos. 1(e)(iii) and 1(e)(iv) for the aforesaid years had been expunged and column No. 2 had been substituted by the following "overall assessment-just average." The remarks which had been expunged are reproduced below:

1(e)(iii):-

Disposal of old cases -not satisfactory, disposed of one S.T. 1991 two of 1992 and six of 1993 out of 7 of 1991, 32 of 1992 and 36 of 1993.

1(e)(iv):-

Progress and disposal of execution cases -There were three execution cases of 1996 but no case was disposed of. One case stayed by the Hon. High Court.

The over all assessment by the District Judge was to the following effect:

poor. Irresponsible and indisciplined officer who has no regard for his superior or truth. Details mentioned in column No. 3 below. Thereafter, detailed remarks were given under column No. 3. Sub para 2 of column 3 begins as under :-

Sri Singh levelled totally false and baseless allegation against me in writing on 31.01.1997 when I was out of Station and had gone to Gwalior. In my absence he handed over an application to Senior Administrative Officer and did not even keep the application in an envelope. Consequently, the contents of the letter were well-known to all the officials and officers working under me before my arrival at the headquarters. He levelled accusation against me that some thieves tried to break open the doors of his residence in the night intervening 30/31.1.1997. He suspected the involvement of some Class IV employees of the judgeship.

According to him the thieves were Class IV employees of the judgeship and I was supporting them.

It has been stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit that petitioner and 12 other persons who had been promoted to H.J.S. on stop gap arrangement were considered by the High Court and they were not found suitable to be approved under Rule 22(1) of U.P. H.J.S. Rules. In para 18 of the counter affidavit the decision of H.J.S. Selection Committee in respect of petitioner has been quoted which is reproduced below:

For the year 1996-97 the District Judge has remarked that he is not amenable to the advice of the District Judge. The District Judge in column 3 has remarked that he is most irresponsible and indisciplined officer.

For the year 1996-97 the Court has given the following remarks:

On His disposal being 132% which is the above fixed standard. His relations with the members of the bar and his brother officers are reported to be good. He is rated as just average. Integrity certified.

In view of the remarks reported by the District Judge for the year 1996-97 he is not recommended for promotion to Higher Judicial Service under Rule 22(1)

It has not been denied in the writ petition that the petitioner wrote a letter levelling charges of direct or indirect involvement of the District Judge in supporting the thieves who had entered the house of the petitioner in the night and that he gave copy of the said letter to the Senior Administrative Officer while District Judge was on leave and the letter was also not kept in any envelop. This admitted conduct fully justifies the remarks of the District Judge under column No. 3(2) of the Annual Report. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the recommendation of the High Court for not promoting/reverting the petitioner from the post of Additional District Judge(H.J.S.) and acceptance of the same by the State Government.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that adverse remarks made by the District Judge were completely expunged by the Inspecting Judge/Administrative Judge is not acceptable. Inspecting Judge/Administrative Judge only modified the remarks to a limited extent i.e. only in respect of disposal of old cases and execution cases and over all assessment entry of poor was replaced by just average.

Absolutely, no comment was made by the inspecting Judge/Administrative Judge against the remarks made by the District Judge in column No. 3 which meant that said remarks were approved.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited some authorities which are discussed below:

Devendra Kumar Nailwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . In the said case in two consecutive years adverse remarks were given by the District Judge; for the first year remarks were expunged by the Administrative Judge. For the second year also adverse remarks given by the District Judge, were not approved by the Administrative Judge and on the contrary the Administrative Judge criticized the manner in which remarks were written by the District Judge and stated in unequivocal term that the same were not justified. In view of this it was held that adverse remarks given by the District Judge for the second year did not exist and the said remarks should be treated to have been expunged. Order passed by the administrative judge for the second year remarks is quoted in para 15 of the said judgment.

Janardan Kumar Goel Vs. State of U.P. Writ petiton No. 1944(S.B.) of 1998 decided on 02.03.2005 photo copy of the judgment has been supplied.

In the said judgment also it was held that adverse remarks given by the District Judge were practically expunged by the Administrative Judge and that the few words adverse observation made by the Administrative Judge was not of such nature which might be sufficient to debar him for promotional purposes. The adverse remarks were in the form of an advice given on the complaint received from a section of the bar and it was to the effect that the officer concerned should not visit service club at the place of his posting much less playing cards.

The next authority is judgment dated 6.7.2007 given in writ petition No. 52413 of 2005 Deshbushan Jain Vs. State of U.P. In the said case adverse remarks given by the District Judge had already been expunged by the Administrative Judge. However, still the representation was placed before the Administrative Committee which rejected the same. In the said judgement it was held that the same District Judge had certified the integrity of the officer concerned in the previous year hence his remarks that petitioner was dishonest and corrupt were unwarranted and they were also based on hearsay and rumours.

We do not find that any of the authorities are applicable to the facts of the instant case.

In the instant case petitioner did not deny writing the offending letter and giving that to the senior

Administrative Officer in the absence of District Judge without keeping the same in an envelope. It was clearly an act of indiscipline, which disentitled the petitioner for promotion.

Accordingly, we do not find any error in the impugned order, writ petition is, therefore dismissed.