( 1 ) P. D. Jharwal, original petitioner, since deceased was a member of Delhi judicial Service. He was a direct recruit having been appointed in the year 1973. He joined his services on 1st May 1975 Prior thereto he was a member of rajasthan Judicial Service. By reason of letter dated 31st October 1992, he was intimated that for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 he has been given the remarks b , b and c respectively Although he was not asked to submit a representation as against the said purported adverse remark, on the ground that he was not informed as to on what basis such remarks were made, a representation was filed by him.

( 2 ) IT has been contended that Annual Confidential Reports (in short acrs .)are given on the work and conduct of the Officer, having regard to; (i) the ACR recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge (ii) the remarks recorded by the High Court on the monthly disposal of the work (iii) the remarks recorded by the Inspecting Judge, and (iv) the reputation of the officer concerned.

( 3 ) IN his afore-mentioned representation it was contended that neither he had been communicated with any remarks recorded by the District and Sessions judge nor by the Inspecting Judge. His further contention was that his monthly disposal of work was good and his good reputation has never been doubted.

( 4 ) A meeting of the Full Court was held to consider his afore-mentioned representation on or about 20th March 1993 and on consideration thereof the same was rejected. The said resolution of this Full Court was communicated to him on 6th April 1993. The matter was thereafter placed before a Screening Committee, which submitted its report on 21st May 1993. In furtherance whereof the matter was again placed before the Full Court on 22nd May 1993 wherein a resolution was adopted to the effect that the judicial work be withdrawn from him with immediate effect. The said resolution of the Full Court was communicated to the petitioner on or about 24th May 1993. It has been placed on record that thereafter in some newspapers it was reported that three judicial officers of the Delhi District courts were being dismissed on the ground of "doubtful intergrity" on or about 1st june 1993. A letter of respondent No. 3 herein, (Administrator of National Capital territory of Delhi), was served on him purported to be on the recommendation of the respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder, he was informed that he was to be compulsorily retired, in terms of Clause 56 (j) of Fundamental Rules and supplementary Rules, 1922 read with Rule 33 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED thereby a representation was filed by him before the third respondent vide his letter dated 21st June 1993 which was placed before the Full court on 16th August 1993. The said representation was rejected by the Full court. On the afore-mentioned premise the petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs.

(A) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned order dated 1 6. 1993 passed by the respondent No. 3 read with order dated 24. 5. 1993 compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the recommendation of respondent No. 2 and order dated 1. 9. 1993 passed by respondent" No. 3 rejecting the representation of the petitioner;

(B) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. "

( 6 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the Delhi High Court, wherein it has been contended that the ACR of a judicial officer is sub-divided into various grades. Grade-B denotes "average", whereas Grade-C denotes " below average". It was contended that although remark- c was an adverse one, inadvertently it had not been mentioned that the officer may represent there against, but as he had made a representation he cannot be said to be prejudice