Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 62 (PAT)

Surajbansh Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-14

B.N.P.SINGH, R.S.GARG

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, Surajbansh Prasad, who was posted as Sub Judge I-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura, after receiving the order, contained in Annexure 1, bearing No. 5208/Adm. (Apptt)/XIX-29-2000, dated 08th May, 2001, informing him that in view of the decision of the Evaluation Committee of the Court he shall cease to be a member of the Judicial Services of the State on completion of age of 58 years, has now come to this Court, inter alia, submitting that in his case extension ought to have been granted, for a period of two years. 3. It appears that the petitioner has come to this Court in a very high esteem as in his self appraisal he has a high ranks and worked hard and, as such, he could not be refused the extension. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner joined the Judicial Services in the/year 1975 as Magistrate, II Class. He got his due promotions time to time and became Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. In August, 1996, he was further promoted as Sub Judge. According to the petitioner, as all through his career he had been working and had conferred promotions timely he could not be refused the extension. On the other hand, the respondents State and the High Court in their counter have submitted that the petitioners own appraisal is not to be given any weight but, in fact, the petitioners case is to be considered in the light of his service record, the confidential reports and the total outcome of his career. In paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner time and again suffered adverse entries and time to time his work was found to be below average and quality of his judgment were not appreciated by the assessing authority. They have also submitted that the petitioners outcome sometimes were very poor. He was described as dull headed hard worker and his efficiency was also examined by the person who has written his confidential report. They have also submitted that the petitioners outcome sometimes were very poor. He was described as dull headed hard worker and his efficiency was also examined by the person who has written his confidential report. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Satya Narain Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2003 (3) PLJR 837 , it is contended that the judicial interference in the matter can only be to a limited extent and as in the present matter the petitioner may not make out a case for interference the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is not in dispute before us that the petitioner joined his service in the year 1975 and was made Sub Judge in the year 1996. It is also not in dispute before us that certain adverse entries made against him were expunged in the year 1993-1994 by the High Court after due consideration of the representation made by the petitioner. 6. In paragraph 8 of the counter the respondents have stated that from perusal of the petitioners CR for the period between 1975-1976 up to 1999-2000 recorded by the District Judges during petitioners tenure in Subordinate Judicial Services, it would appear that in the year 1978-1979 the District Judge recorded that he lacks control over his staff. In 1979-1980 he was found to be dull headed hard worker. In 1983-1984 his performance was found to be unsatisfactory with consistent poor out-turn round the year. In the year 1992-1993 it was recorded that the petitioner was not efficient, upto the mark and his disposal was on the lower side. It also appears that in July, 1986, he was found below average and it was observed that his knowledge of law and procedure was below average, he was found to be below average in the matter of industriousness and promptness in disposal of the cases. His judgment and others were ranked below average and he was not found to be good Judicial Officer and negative remark was given. Though two complaint petitions were also received against the industriousness of the petitioner. They were referred to the concerned District Judges but the outcome of the same is not known. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that for number of the years the petitioner was found to be below average. Though two complaint petitions were also received against the industriousness of the petitioner. They were referred to the concerned District Judges but the outcome of the same is not known. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that for number of the years the petitioner was found to be below average. He was not found to be a good officer having full knowledge or good knowledge of law. The judgments were conducted as below average and his relations with the staff were not found to be cordial. If all that be so then the question would be whether the assessment made by the Evaluation Committee should be judicially scrutinised by this Court on its judicial side. I n the matter of Satya Narain Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 837 , this Court has given detailed reasons in the matter of the Judicial Officers who have been refused extension in services. The High Court on the judicial side ordinarily would not substitute its opinion with the opinion of the Evaluation Committee duly approved by the Full Court, unless it is brought on record that the members of the Evaluation Committee nursed or nurtured something against the petitioner or the order has been created, concocted or manufactured to cause loss to the petitioner by not granting extension. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously and with his usual vehemence submitted that the petitioners integrity was not found to be doubtful, therefore, even if he is little dull, the extension ought to have been granted in his case. In the opinion of this Court, the question of integrity would not bend the law whereunder the extension can be granted to the petitioner. The integrity would be one of the criterion and would not be the sole criterion. While assessing an officer or evaluating his entire service career, the High Court on the administrative side has to take into consideration the question of integrity, the hard work, the understanding in law, the industriousness, the quality of the judgments, the control over the staff and relationship with the colleagues and the staff and number of other matters. While assessing an officer or evaluating his entire service career, the High Court on the administrative side has to take into consideration the question of integrity, the hard work, the understanding in law, the industriousness, the quality of the judgments, the control over the staff and relationship with the colleagues and the staff and number of other matters. In a given case an officer several time may be exempted after complaints are disposed of against him but if he is prone to the complaints and by his behaviour compels people to believe against him and his work then the High Court would be justified, despite giving him a clean chit that extension may not be granted to him. One or the other matter is not be taken into consideration, while considering question of extension but the totality of the service career is to be taken into consideration. 9. In the present matter after going through the complete records and appreciating the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court, we are unable to hold that the report submitted by the Evaluation Committee approved by the Full Court and communicated by the Registrar General to the present petitioner calls for interference. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.