Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3490 (PNJ)

Manjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2018-08-16

A.B.CHAUDHARI, KULDIP SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Kuldip Singh J. - Petitioner was appointed to P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class on 09.06.1992. He was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 23.02.2008 for Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Thereafter, he was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge and was posted at Ludhiana, vide order dated 29.06.2009. The Administrative Judge of Ludhiana Sessions Division for the year 2010-11 recorded the following adverse remarks in his ACR: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year Remarks by the High Court Adverse/advisory remarks if any ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Officer. From the concerned file, produced by the High Court, it comes out that a Committee consisting of three Senior Judges, namely, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi constituted in the year 2004 submitted a report dated 31.01.2005. The Committee was entrusted with the job to consider the norms required to be followed at the time of inspection and before recording the remarks ‘integrity doubtful’. The Committee of Hon’ble Senior Judges after considering the information gathered from some High Courts, rules and the case law on the point had made the following recommendations: “The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judicial precedents, mentioned above, and number of others taking the same view, is well entrenched and has no exception whatsoever. The principle of audi-alteram-partem which has been universally recognised lays down that the concerned officer should be confronted with the material forming the basis of opinion of the reporting officer with regard to his integrity. It is not only with regard to various Government services but also with regard to Judicial Officers as well that this principle is applicable. The Committee is, thus, of the unanimous view that before forming an opinion to make adverse entry in the confidential report of a Judicial Officer, Hon’ble Judge should confront the concerned Judicial Officer with the material, on the basis of which he is likely to form an opinion that the integrity of the Judicial Officer is doubtful. If the material is not a part of record and though the conduct, reputation and character of the concerned officer might be public knowledge or notoriety which is within the knowledge of the Hon’ble Judge, before forming an opinion to make adverse entry in confidential report, the Hon’ble Judge should share the information with the concerned officer. If the material is not a part of record and though the conduct, reputation and character of the concerned officer might be public knowledge or notoriety which is within the knowledge of the Hon’ble Judge, before forming an opinion to make adverse entry in confidential report, the Hon’ble Judge should share the information with the concerned officer. It is only after the officer is confronted either with the material or information, as mentioned above, and he is unable to satisfactorily explain the facts and circumstances appearing against him that integrity of the Judicial Officer should be doubted and ‘C’ (Integrity Doubtful) report should be given to him and not otherwise.” 20. Unluckily, the said report failed to find favour with the Full Court, which in its meeting dated 31.07.2015, decided to follow the past practice. 21. In the present case, learned counsel for the High Court has fairly stated that the High Court does not have the material to support the adverse ACR. 22. That being so, the adverse remarks recorded in ACR of the petitioner for the year 2010-2011 are liable to be quashed along with consequential orders rejecting his representation order by the Full House and confirming the ACR. Considering the previous ACRs and subsequent ACRs of the petitioner, which are ‘B Plus (Good)’, the ACR for the year 2010-2011 is to be treated as ‘B Plus (Good)’. 23. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. The adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2010-2011 are hereby quashed and the over all grading ‘Below Average’-’Integrity doubtful’ is also ordered to be quashed and ordered to be read as ‘B Plus (Good)’. 24. Before parting with the judgment, we are of the view that the valuable report of three Judges Committee, which was submitted on 31.01.2005 after careful examination of the law on the point, needs to be reconsidered by the High Court, for the view we have taken based on recent Hon’ble the Supreme Court judgment. 24. Before parting with the judgment, we are of the view that the valuable report of three Judges Committee, which was submitted on 31.01.2005 after careful examination of the law on the point, needs to be reconsidered by the High Court, for the view we have taken based on recent Hon’ble the Supreme Court judgment. Hence, we earnestly recommend to the High Court to take up the matter on the administrative side and take a fresh decision on the report of the Committee and also in the light of the law as discussed in the present judgment, for laying the guidelines for recording adverse remarks/ ‘C’-integrity doubtful in the ACR of the Judicial Officers, which many times have the effect of deferred premature retirement order. Let the Registry place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court expeditiously for appropriate orders.