Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2960 (ALL)

JAI PAL SINGH - III v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-08-26

AMITAVA LALA, SHISHIR KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition has been made by petitioner for the purposes of issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner as well as the order of rejection of representation dated 27th April, 2009 (wrongly indicated as order of dismissal in the prayer). Further prayer is made about issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing that the impugned adverse remarks shall not affect the service or promotion of petitioner in any way. 2. Upon hearing the petitioner, we have directed in presence of Mr. Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel appearing for the High Court and the learned Standing Counsel for the State to take instruction and to produce the report before this Court. We find from the report as follows : “May kindly see the note dated 18.8.2009 (placed below) of Section Officer (Litigation Cell) sending therewith a copy of the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 42293/2009, Jaipal Singh-III v. State of U.P. and another seeking the facts and material in the matter by 19.8.2009 in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court. As per note dated 18.8.2009 of Section Officer (Litigation Cell), the Hon‘ble Court has been pleased to pass the order on 18.8.2009 as quoted below : “Put up on 20.8.2000. Respondent to obtain instruction as to whether petitioners representation was placed before Administrative Judge or Administrative Committee and if so what was the order passed.” In view of the said note dated 18.8.2009 of Section Officer (Litigation Cell), it is submitted that the following Court’s remarks were recorded by the then Hon‘ble Administrative Judge/Inspecting Judge, Moradabad in respect of Sri Jai Pal Singh, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandausi, Moradabad for the year 1994-95 : “Disposal adequate being 160.7 per cent. The officer enjoyed a stinkingly bad reputation as revealed in my surprise inspection made incognito on 18th of April, 1995. Assessment of judicial performance adjudged ‘poor’ on the basis of my Inspection Note for the year 1994-95. Against the annual remarks given by the District Judge, for the year 1994-95, the representation of the officer has been allowed by Hon. Mr. Justice R.S. Dhavan as the representation was placed before the Hon‘ble Judge being the Inspecting Judge of the District to which the officer was transferred. Against the annual remarks given by the District Judge, for the year 1994-95, the representation of the officer has been allowed by Hon. Mr. Justice R.S. Dhavan as the representation was placed before the Hon‘ble Judge being the Inspecting Judge of the District to which the officer was transferred. In view of the representation having been allowed by Hon‘ble Mr. Justice R.S. Dhavan and adverse remarks given in the confidential report by the District Judge having been expunged, I am not giving any remark regarding his integrity.” Sri Jai Pal Singh made the representation dated 1.1.1997 against the adverse remarks occurring in the aforesaid Court remarks recorded by the then Hon‘bIe Administrative Judge/Inspecting Judge, Moradabad for the year 1994-95 and the said representation was placed before the Hon’ble Administrative Committee vide office note dated 22.2.1997 and the same was rejected by the Hon’ble Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 16.5.1997 as below : “Considered the representation dated 1.1.1997 of Sri Jai Pal Singh-III, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tehri against the adverse remarks recorded by the Court for the year 1994-95. Resolved that the representation be rejected. The Administrative Committee has taken into consideration the fact that by inadvertence the representation made by the Officer against the adverse remarks was placed before the then Inspecting Judge, Tehri, to which place the officer had been transferred.” The officer was informed accordingly vide Court’s letter No.C-472/Cf.(A)/97, dated 24.5.1997 through the District Judge, Tehri about the rejection of his representation dated 1.1.1997 against the adverse remarks occurring in the aforesaid Court remarks recorded by the then Administrative Judge/Inspecting Judge for the year 1994-95. If approved, the aforesaid facts along with copy of the resolution dated 16.5.1997 of the Hon’ble Administrative Committee and a copy of the Court’s letter dated 24.5.1997 in the matter may be sent to O.S.D. (Litigation) for necessary action at his end.” 3. From the communication dated 27th April, 2009, we find as follows : “Whilst taking orientation to the representation dated 28.8.2008 (forwarded by the District & Sessions Judge, Budaun vide endorsement No. 1631/1 dated 29.8.2008) of Sri Jai Pal Singh-III, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Budaun against the adverse remarks occurring in the annual confidential remarks recorded by the Hon’ble Court/the then Inspecting Judge, Moradabad for the year 1994-95, I am desired to say that the aforesaid representation has been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Court. Sri Jai Pal Singh-III may kindly be informed accordingly.” 4. According to petitioner, there is no bar of repeated representation particularly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in JT 1999(10) SC 99, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar v. Sarnam Singh and another, whereunder the Supreme Court held that inspection of subordinate Courts is not a one day or an hour or five minutes affair. It has to go on all the year round by monitoring the work of the Inspecting Judge. The casual inspection can hardly be beneficial to a judicial system. 5. Possibly the petitioner wanted to establish that when the process is continuous, cause of action is also continuous. But here the petitioner has contended before us that though the Administrative Committee did not expunge the remark on 16th May, 1997 but on the basis of fresh representation dated 28th August, 2008 while the Court replied by its letter dated 27th April, 2009 and communicated to the petitioner on 6th May, 2009, it gives a fresh cause of action to petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to obtain an appropriate order. 6. Factually communicating letter merely communicated earlier rejection, therefore the same cannot given any fresh cause of action after so many years of such rejection. 7. We have gone through Chapter-III, Rule-4 Part-B (matters for Administrative Judges) Item No. 3. Whether at this stage any relief can be granted to petitioner or not, we find item No. 3 as follows : “3. Any adverse remarks or strictures made by an (Administrative) Judge about judicial work, conduct or integrity of any officer under his charge will be communicated to the officer concerned, who may make his representations, if any, within a month and the same shall be placed before the Administrative Committee for consideration and decision." 8. Therefore, it is the duty of the officer concerned to file his representation against the adverse remarks, strictures made by Administrative Judge about judicial work, conduct or integrity within a period of one month from the date of communication of such remark. No such effort has been made, therefore, no relaxation can be shown even in the judicial side at this belated stage. No such effort has been made, therefore, no relaxation can be shown even in the judicial side at this belated stage. Factually, such period has already over by a decision on merit in a meeting of the Administrative Committee held on 16th May, 1997 and the Supreme Court Judgment has seen the light of the day in 1999. The judgment was delivered on 15th December, 1999, yet the petitioner waited till 2008 when such representation is made. A judicial officer is not a rustic villager. Judicial Officer presumably be conversant with the judicial decision of the Supreme Court and the High Court/s. At least we can expect the same. Had it been a case of petitioner that immediately after the Supreme Court judgment, he had made a representation. The Court could have shown sympathy but not after a period of nine years from delivery of Supreme Court judgment. If we do so, it will open a flood gate of litigations and will be interference with the earlier administrative decision of the High Court. Therefore, Court cannot pass any order at this belated stage contrary to such decision. Moreover so far as several representations are concerned, it has already held by the Supreme Court in (2006) 4 SCC 322, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and another v. K. Thangappan and another that series of representations cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of petitioner. 9. Therefore, in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the matter at all. 10. Hence, writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—I agree. ————