JUDGMENT

Sen, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court on a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing some adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1990. The controversies raised by the appellant in this case are really questions of fact. The appellant Bharat Ram Meena was appointed as Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate on probation for two years on 19.7.1985. The appellant was duly confirmed and later on posted as Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, District Balotra. In the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 the appellant discharged the duties as Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate, Barmer satisfactorily. In has been stated by the appellant that Shri Satya Prakash Pathak, the then District and Sessions Judge, Balotra had found the appellant s work satisfactory and the Annual Confidential Reports had been written accordingly.

3. General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of State of Rajasthan were held on 27.2.1990. The appellant was deputed as Zonal Magistrate for the purpose of election to the State Assembly. On 20.2.1990, a wireless message had been issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court to the Election Officer, Rajasthan, all Collectors of the State and District and Sessions Judges permitting deployment of Judicial Magistrates and subordinate staff of Judicial Courts for election duty. The directions were given by the High Court to the District Collectors to contact the District and Sessions Judges for this purpose. The Collectors were not authorised to issue any instructions to Judicial Officers directly. The District and Sessions Judges had to be contacted for giving instructions to the Judicial Officers. The Collector, Barmer by order dated 17.2.1990 deployed the appellant as Zonal Officer/Zonal Magistrate for the election period commencing from 23.2.1990 to 27.2.1990. In the said order of the Collector, it was stated that a meeting of the Zonal Officers/Zonal Magistrates was to be held at 3 p.m. on 22.2.1990. The District and Sessions Judge, Balotra by his order had directed the Zonal Officers stationed at Barmer (including the appellant) to work upto 2.45 p.m. on 22.2.1990 in their respective courts and they were asked to attend the election duty from 23.2.1990 till 27.2.1990.

4. On 19.2.1990, the District Collector without contacting the District Sessions Judge, directly got in touch with the appellant and sent him to deliver a D.O. letter to the Deputy Secretary, Judicial Department at Jaipur. On the same date, the appellant without any reference to or permission from the District and Sessions Judge went to Jaipur and came back on 22.2.1990. He was also absent from Court on 28.2.1990 without prior permission alleging that he was on election duty for which a certificate from the District Election Officer was produced. In view of the unauthorised absence of the appellant from 19.2.1990 to 22.2.1990 and also on 28.2.1990 without prior permission of the District and Sessions Judge, an adverse entry was made in his Annual Confidential Report by the District Judge and a report was submitted to the Registrar of the High Court for initiating disciplinary proceeding against the appellant. The disciplinary authority, passed order to the following effect :

"I deem it proper the delinquent officer to be given a warning to be careful in future to maintain absolute devotion to duty and dignity of the office held by him."

5. The second controversy involving the appellant started when the appellant was working as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate from 21.8.1987 to 28.4.1990. The appellant had been invested with jurisdiction to hear all cases arising and registered after 30.1.1990 under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. On 26.3.1990, Constable Man Singh submitted a challan in the case of State versus Nathu Singh & Ors. under Section 430, IPC and Section 3(13) of the 1989 Act.

6. The allegation against the appe