Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 747 (RAJ)

Ram Avtar Soni v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

2014-03-21

AMITAVA ROY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The writ petitioner, a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short hereinafter referred-to as "the Service") seeks to annul the remark "Below Average" as well as the decision rejecting his representation for expunction thereof. 2. We have heard Mr.Ravindra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-High Court. 3. Briefly stated the pleaded facts outlining the rival versions are that the petitioner, on being inducted in the Service as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, was posted at Nokha, District Bikaner, in the year 2007. During the period 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007, the percentage of his disposal of cases was 144.66, which, as claimed by him, in terms of the revised norms to adjudge the level of performance, deserved grading of "good". By letter dated 26.11.2008 issued by the Registry of the High Court, he was communicated that in his A.C.R. for the year 2007, he had been graded on the basis of overall performance to be "Below Average". Thereby he was intimated as well that he could represent against this assessment. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his representation, which was rejected and this decision was conveyed to him by the letter dated 3.4.2010 issued by the Registrar General of the High Court. Being aggrieved, he has sought judicial intervention for redress, contending in substance that having regard to his percentage of disposal of cases and overall performance, the grading of "Below Average" is not only unwarranted, he ought to be on expunction thereof, graded as "Good" at the minimum. 4. The respondent-High Court in its reply, while endorsing the grading of the petitioner "Below Average", has not only referred-to a report of the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of district Bikaner made on the basis of His Lordship's surprise inspection of the Station Nokha, where at the relevant time, he (petitioner) was posted as Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, but also detailed the relevant excerpts therefrom disclosing lapses, irregularities and remiss on his part on various counts. According to the answering respondent, on an overall consideration of relevant aspects, the petitioner was, thus, graded "Below Average". According to it, this remark was duly communicated to him (petitioner) against which he submitted his representation. That his representation was duly considered and rejected, was also stated. 5. According to the answering respondent, on an overall consideration of relevant aspects, the petitioner was, thus, graded "Below Average". According to it, this remark was duly communicated to him (petitioner) against which he submitted his representation. That his representation was duly considered and rejected, was also stated. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the contents of the report, drawn up and submitted by the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. 6. Whereas Mr.Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has emphatically argued that in the face of the performance of the petitioner, manifested by his percentage of disposal, his grading as "Below Average" is patently erroneous and unjustified, Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-High Court, has urged on the basis of the relevant official records that having regard to the disclosures in the Inspection Report dated 17.11.2007 of the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge prepared on the basis of the findings in course of his surprise inspection of the Station concerned, this plea is wholly untenable. Moreover, as petitioner's representation against the remark "Below Average" has been duly considered and rejected by the concerned Committee on an exhaustive scrutiny of the relevant records, no interference by this court in the exercise of the power of judicial review is called for. 7. We have applied ourselves to the pleadings of the parties and the documents made available. We have analysed the rival arguments as well. It is too trite to mention that the grading of a judicial officer is essentially based on his overall performance on the judicial as well as administrative side of his functioning. Apart from the personality traits of an officer, the inputs with regard to his reputation and integrity also do have a bearing on the assessment preceding the assignment of the grading. The vigilance inputs and the record of disciplinary action, if any, are also taken note of. The evaluation of an officer's performance, thus, is not guided solely by the percentage of disposal of cases. A comprehensive appraisal on the basis of the qualitative and quantitative quotients determines the ultimate grading of an officer. 8. The vigilance inputs and the record of disciplinary action, if any, are also taken note of. The evaluation of an officer's performance, thus, is not guided solely by the percentage of disposal of cases. A comprehensive appraisal on the basis of the qualitative and quantitative quotients determines the ultimate grading of an officer. 8. A plain perusal of the Inspection Report dated 17.11.2007, drawn up by the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of the district Bikaner following a surprise visit of Nokha, the Station where at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted, reveals a host of shortcomings on his part in his performance as a judicial officer. It was inter alia noticed, as would be apparent from the said Inspection Report, that there was no "Peshi Register" and the "Bound Book" used as such, did not contain any entry after 29.6.2007. The "Peshi diary" as available for the period prior to April, 2007 was also found to be incomplete and the Reader of the Court, who was supposed to be in-charge of the same, had no explanation to offer. The report divulged further that the Cause list was not being prepared as per the procedure. On an examination of certain Court files at random, the dates mentioned in the Peshi Diary did not tally with those as per the orders passed. It was recorded as well that the petitioner was not at all working in the court, which was run by the Staff in his name. The Hon'ble Inspecting Judge recorded further that the petitioner "neither writes order-sheets nor record statements nor even writes the judgments". Not a single judgment dictated by the Officer (petitioner) was available in the diary of the stenographer concerned. That the petitioner was claiming false credit of performance and that he "manipulates the things in a manner to technically show full trial and claims credit of full trial of that criminal case", was mentioned. It was noted as well hereunder: "The modus operandi adopted is, that on the date when challan is filed, order sheet is drawn about framing of the charge, then accused denying the charge, then recording one statement of some prosecution witness, then recording confession of the accused and convicting him, and releasing him on mild punishment of payment of Rs. It was noted as well hereunder: "The modus operandi adopted is, that on the date when challan is filed, order sheet is drawn about framing of the charge, then accused denying the charge, then recording one statement of some prosecution witness, then recording confession of the accused and convicting him, and releasing him on mild punishment of payment of Rs. 50/- as fine, or sentencing till rising of the Court, or admonition, or probation, or the like, and then credit for full trial is claimed." 9. The Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, on a scrutiny of certain files at random, did observe that the order-sheets were manipulated, and that even though the statements of the witnesses and the accused had been recorded and the judgment was pronounced, the order-sheet was not drawn or even signed, on the administrative side as well. The Hon'ble Inspecting Judge recorded that the Reader had not inspected the office and that he (petitioner) was not only unaware of it but also he had failed to enforce the direction to that effect of the learned District Judge or take disciplinary action against the defaulting Reader. That the Institution and Disposal Registers too, were found to be incomplete, was mentioned as well. Suffice it to state that the above narration refers only to some of the salient aspects of the Report. 10. Be that as it may, the related proceedings of the concerned Committee would reveal that the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking expunction of the grading "Below Average" was elaborately considered by it and having regard to the Inspection Report, referred-to hereinabove and other materials available on record, rejected the same on merit. Not only the Inspection Report does not admit of any reservation, no imputation of malafide or extraneous consideration has been made. Though in course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought to salvage his cause by referring to some subsequent reports of the years 2010 and 2011 having a supposed bearing on the correctness and acceptability of the findings in the above referred Inspection Report, on a perusal of the original records laid before us, we are unable to discern any material to sustain this plea. A perusal of the Inspection Report of the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, referred-to hereinabove, and on a consideration of all other relevant materials on record, we are of the unhesitant opinion that no interference either with the grading of "Below Average" qua the petitioner for the year 2007 or the decision rejecting his representation vis-a-vis the same, is warranted in the facts & circumstances of the case. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******