Back
2012(1) SCC 214
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
PRATAP SINGH - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2307 of 2011
Decided on 15-11-2011.
(b) Service Law – Judicial Service – Promotion – Report of Inspecting Judge not communicated to appellant – Consideration thereof against appellant for declining promotion – Not proper. (Para 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant who joined as Munsif was promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division).
He was further promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge in ad hoc capacity. While being posted in that capacity, one night some people tried to break open his house and he suspected involvement of class IV employees. The next day he handed over an application to the Senior Administrative Officer wherein he alleged the support of the District Judge to class IV employees suspected to have entered the house of the appellant for theft.
The District Judge made an adverse remark in his ACR.
On representation of the appellant the adverse remark was expunged and replaced with -`overall assessment -just average’.
Appellant’s name was not considered for appointment in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS and he was reverted to the judicial service, i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division).
Appellant’s writ petition was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court should reconsider appellant’s promotion in the light of discussion herein and in accordance with law.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.-The appellant -a judicial officer -having not been promoted in the substantive vacancy to Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (for short, `UPHJS') and, as a result of which, was reverted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) is in appeal, by special leave.
2. The appellant, after due selection, joined judicial service in Uttar Pradesh as Munsiff on May 16, 1977 and was confirmed as such on August 30, 1982. He became Additional Civil Judge on January 4, 1986 and got selection grade of Rs. 3700 -5000 with effect from April 1, 1990. He then became Civil Judge (Senior Division).
3. The Allahabad High Court, on the administrative side, in its full court meeting held on November 18, 1995, approved promotion of the appellant in officiating capacity under Rule 22(3) of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (for short, `1975 Rules'). Pursuant to the above decision taken by the full court, a notification was issued on June 7, 1996 promoting and posting the appellant as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur.
4. While the appellant was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, Shri Mukteshwar Prasad happened to be District Judge, Lalitpur. The appellant was made Officer in-charge, Nazarat by the District Judge with effect from September 10, 1996. The appellant continued as such until March, 1997 or so. It so happened that in the intervening night of January 30/31, 1997, some thieves entered the residence of the appellant and tried to break open the doors. The appellant suspected the involvement of class-IV employees of Lalitpur Judgeship. On that day, the District Judge was on leave and the appellant handed over an application to the Senior Administrative Officer wherein he alleged the support of the District Judge to class IV employees suspected to have entered the house of the appellant for theft. The application made by the appellant to the Senior Administrative Officer was kept in an open envelope. The District Judge, Lalitpur sought explanation from the appellant with regard to the allegations made by him in his application and also gave information of the incident to the Registrar of the High Court as well as the inspecting Judge of Lalitpur Judgeship on February 19, 1997.
5. In the appellant's annual confidential report (ACR) of the year 1996-97 (June 12, 1996 to March 31, 1997), the District Judge (Shri Mukteshwar Prasad) made the following remarks:
"(a) Integrity of the officer whether Beyond doubt. No beyond doubt, doubtful or complaint received. positively lacking.
(b) If he is fair and impartial in No specific dealing with the public and bar. complaint was made to me.
(c) If he is cool-mind and does not Yes lose temper in court.
(d) His private character, if such as No complaint to lower him in the estimation of received against the public and adversely affects his private the discharge of his official character. duties.
(e) Control over the file in the matter of-(i) Proper fixation of cause list. Not proper. On an Average, he fixed 22-23 cases. (ii) Avoidance of unnecessary Satisfactory adjournments (iii) Disposal of old cases. Not satisfactory. Disposed of one S.T. of 1991, 2 of 1992 and 6 of 1993 out of 7 of 1991, 32 of 1992 and 36 of 1993. (iv) Progress and disposal of There were 3 execution cases. execution cases of 1996 but no case was disposed of. One case is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. (v) Interim orders, injunctions Yes. Being granted, refused to retained for sufficient reasons. (vi) Are cases remanded on No appeal was substantial grounds? remanded.
(f) Whether judgments on facts Judgments of and law are on the whole average quality. sound, well reasoned and expressed in good language.
(g) Whether disposal of work is Out-turn being 132% adequate (give percentage & is above the reasons for short disposal). standard. As per statement received as against 133 working days, he gave work for 175.88.
(h) Control over the office and Proper. administrative cap
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
