Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1905 (ALL)

RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-08-09

R.K.AGRAWAL, SUNIL HALI

body2011
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner during his service tenure was posted at District Chandauli w.e.f. 1.4.2005 to 22.9.2005 and during this period, he worked as Chief Judicial Magistrate w.e.f. 10.6.2005 to 22.9.2005. vide a communication dated 31.7.2006, District Judge, Chandauli forwarded a copy of the Annual Confidential Remarks of the petitioner recorded for the year 2005-06 to the District Judge, Meerut for being intimated to the petitioner. Several adverse observations against the petitioner were made on his overall assessment of his service profile for the said period. Overall assessment of the petitioner was found ‘Poor’. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner filed a representation dated 21.8.2006 before the Registrar-General, High Court, Allahabad seeking for expunging the aforesaid remarks. While the aforesaid representation was pending consideration, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 10.10.2006 issued by the High Court on the administrative side calling for an explanation with regard to his disposal of cases being less-than the minimum prescribed standard fixed. 2. Another communication was received by the petitioner in this respect regarding the remarks recorded by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge in his Annual Confidential Report. A representation was filed by the petitioner against the said Annual Confidential Report before the High Court. The explanation submitted by the petitioner with regard to the disposal of the cases being less than the minimum standard was found to be incorrect and in this respect a communication was received by the petitioner from the Registrar (Confidential) that his disposal was found to be satisfactory. 3. The representations made against expunging of Annual Confidential Report recorded by the District Judge and Hon’ble Administrative Judge were considered by a Committee constituted in this behalf and vide communication dated 6.5.2008 the petitioner was informed that the same have been rejected. Two communications on this behalf were sent by the Registrar (Confidential) to the petitioner. Both these orders are subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that no formal order rejecting the representations has been communicated to the petitioner by the Administrative Committee. All that has been communicated to the petitioner is communication dated 6.5.2008 indicating that his representation has been rejected. Further contention is that there was no material on the basis of which the Committee had taken a decision to reject his representation. All that has been communicated to the petitioner is communication dated 6.5.2008 indicating that his representation has been rejected. Further contention is that there was no material on the basis of which the Committee had taken a decision to reject his representation. The decision was taken on the basis of the assessment made by the reporting officer and the Hon’ble Administrative Judge. There was nothing before the Administrative Committee to draw the conclusion that the assessment made by the reporting Officer was based upon some material. The assessment made by the reporting officer did not disclose the material on the basis of which the assessment has been made. The assessment made by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge was on the basis of some queries sought from the Bar regarding the functioning of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that while functioning as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, some complaints were received against the petitioner regarding his moral conduct. On the basis of such complaints, he was transferred on 22.5.1995. The adverse entries were recorded against the petitioner by the reporting officer i.e. District Judge, Chandauli. Hon’ble Administrative Judge was also constrained to record adverse remarks against the petitioner for the year 2005-06 which were communicated to him through the District Judge, Meerut. The following entries were recorded by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge in respect of the petitioner: “This officer had a bad reputation of not being fair. There was a great discontent amongst the members of Bar when I visited Chandauli. The then District Judge Gulab Singh Rathor also did not have good reputation about him. He was not amenable to the advice of the District Judge. The list submitted by this officer regarding the disposal of the cases indicates that old Sessions Trials were not given preference by him. Over all performance is poor. The District Judge has also made adverse comment upon him regarding his integrity. Integrity is not certified.” 7. The representation against the adverse entry was considered by the Administrative Committee constituted on this behalf on 3.3.3008. 8. The purpose of communicating adverse report to the Government Servant is to inform him regarding his deficiency and to afford an opportunity to improve his work. The object is to inform the officer with a note of warning and caution to improve his conduct. 8. The purpose of communicating adverse report to the Government Servant is to inform him regarding his deficiency and to afford an opportunity to improve his work. The object is to inform the officer with a note of warning and caution to improve his conduct. Any adverse entry recorded in his Annual Confidential Report will directly affect his future promotion and can also be a ground for premature retirement. Affording an opportunity to represent against the adverse entry is right of the petitioner. 9. While deciding his representation, the competent authority has a sacred duty to analyse the nature of adverse entry and its authenticity on the basis of which adverse entry has been made. The representation filed by the officer is required to be considered and such a consideration must be reflected in the order passed by the competent authority while deciding the same. Applying this principle in this case, it is important to note that 3 representations were filed by the petitioner; one against the disposal of the cases; and other two against the adverse entries recorded by District Judge, Chandauli and Hon’ble Administrative Judge. The Committee constituted to examine such representations vide its decision dated 30.4.2010 accepted the explanation of the petitioner in respect of the disposal of the cases. It was recorded that the quota for disposal of the Officer was adequate. In respect of other two representations, the Committee in its meeting held on 9.4.2008 rejected the representations of the petitioner against the adverse entry recorded by the District Judge, Chandauli and Hon’ble Administrative Judge. The following decision has been taken by the Committee in respect of both the representations of the petitioner : “The Committee considered the representation dated nil of Sri Rajendra Prasad Gupta, the then Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chandauli presently Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Meerut, which representation is against the adverse remarks occurring in the annual confidential remarks recorded by the District Judge for the year 2005-06. The Committee recommends that the representation of Shri Rajendra Prasad is liable to be rejected as the impugned remarks have been recorded for sufficient reasons and there is nothing on record to contradict the facts in the impugned remarks.” “The Committee considered the representation of Sri Rajendra Prasad Gupta aforesaid, which is against the adverse remarks occurring in the remarks recorded, for the year 2005-06, by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge. The remarks record that the general reputation built around the officer was of not being fair; during his visit, the Hon’ble Administrative Judge had noticed that there was great discontent amongst the Advocates; the officer was not amendable to the advice and old cases were not given preference. In view of the above, his performance was assessed “poor’ and his integrity was not certified. There is nothing to contradict the facts in the impugned remarks. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the representation is bereft of merits and is liable to be rejected.” 10. While recording Confidential report, the District Judge had found the following reasons for the same : (a) Integrity of the officer was lacking as many transfer applications were filed seeking transfer of the cases pending before him; (b) Interim orders/injunctions did not contain sufficient reasons; (c) Judgments delivered by the Officer lacking reasons and sufficient discussions. 11. The petitioner represented against these entries and contested all the allegations levelled therein. The decision recorded by the Administrative Committee does not disclose as to whether the findings of the District Judge were supported by any supporting evidence. As a matter fact, nothing has been disclosed in the decision taken by the Committee in this behalf. 12. Regarding disposal of the representation made against the adverse entry by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge is more or less general in nature and there is no specific allegation in this behalf. The following things have been observed by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge regarding the petitioner : (a) General reputation of the petitioner does not fair; (b) There was discontentment against the petitioner’s functioning as reported by the Bar; (c) Old cases were not given preference. 13. It is important to note that the District Judge while recording remarks in the column disposal of old cases, has stated ‘Disposal of old cases is proper’. The Hon’ble Administrative Judge has recorded finding to the contrary. 14. 13. It is important to note that the District Judge while recording remarks in the column disposal of old cases, has stated ‘Disposal of old cases is proper’. The Hon’ble Administrative Judge has recorded finding to the contrary. 14. It is true that in view of the settled legal position that the object of a Government servant and communication of the adverse remarks is to afford an opportunity to the concerned officer to make amends to his remiss; to reform himself; to mend his conduct and to be disciplined, to mend his conduct to do handwork to bring home his lapse in his integrity and character so that he corrects himself and improve the efficiency in public service. The entries, therefore, require an objective assessment of the work and conduct of a Government servant reflecting as accurately as possible his sagging inefficiency and incompetency. The defects and deficiencies brought home to the officer are means to the end of correcting himself and to show improvement towards excellence. 15. Dealing with this principle, it will be seen from the decision taken by the Administrative Committee the adverse entry recorded against the petitioner has been accepted purely on the basis of facts revealed in the communication. In the case in hand, no extract of the report of the Committee which considered the representation of the petitioner has been furnished to the petitioner nor he was informed as to who had considered and rejected the representation and as to what reasons have been assigned and or which materiel has been considered while rejecting the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Committee had considered for calling comments from the reporting officer i.e. District Judge as to on what basis such report was submitted. 16. What is concluded from the aforesaid discussion is that no reason has been recorded by the Committee while rejecting the representations of the petitioner except stating that there is no material defect in the facts. 17. In our opinion, this can not be considered to be a sound reasoning for rejecting the representations of the petitioner. It is important to submit that decision of the Committee was required to be communicated to the petitioner which has not been done in the present case. 17. In our opinion, this can not be considered to be a sound reasoning for rejecting the representations of the petitioner. It is important to submit that decision of the Committee was required to be communicated to the petitioner which has not been done in the present case. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the Committee to consider the representations of the petitioner afresh and give reasons after considering all the objective material on the basis of which adverse entries have been recorded by the District Judge and the Hon’ble Administrative Judge. Let the process be completed within three months from the date of communication of this order. —————