Back
High Court Of Delhi
MADAN B. LOKUR, ARUNA SURESH
BARKHA GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) 11017 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/20/2006
BARKHA GUPTA V. HIGH COURT OF DELHI - ACR - GRADING - INTEGRITY DOUBTFUL - JUDICIAL OFFICER - INSPECTING JUDGE - FULL COURT - MADAN MOHAN CHAUDHARY V. STATE OF BIHAR - SHETTY COMMISSION - ISHWAR CHAND JAIN V. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' (VIII) V. UNION OF INDIA - PADAM SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - P. D. JHARWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH SMT. SHINGARI DEVI AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - M. S. BINDRA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE - HIGH COURT OF DELHI - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE - SPECIAL COMMITTEE - COMMITTEE OF JUDGES - ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - ACR - INTEGRITY - DOUBTFUL - GRADING - JUDICIAL OFFICER - INSPECTING JUDGE - FULL COURT - MADAN MOHAN CHAUDHARY V. STATE OF BIHAR - SHETTY COMMISSION - ISHWAR CHAND JAIN V. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' (VIII) V. UNION OF INDIA - PADAM SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - P. D. JHARWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH SMT. SHINGARI DEVI AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - M. S. BINDRA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE - HIGH COURT OF DELHI - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE - SPECIAL COMMITTEE - COMMITTEE OF JUDGES - ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner was appointed to the Delhi Judicial Service in November, 1992 and was posted as a Sub Judge at Tees Hazari Courts in May, 1993. Her work and conduct did not draw any adverse comments - on the contrary, she received rather favourable gradings in her Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACRs)for the first few years of her service as can be seen from the chart given below: ACR for the year Grading 1993 B+ (Good) 1994 B+ (Good) 1995 B+ (Good) 1996 B (Average) 1997 A (Very Good) 1998 A (Very Good) For the year 1999, the learned District Judge, in response to a question (in relation to her ACR for that year) remarked as follows: has (she) maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality during the period under report" (Give reasons for your answer if it is negative or doubtful)Yes. No complaint regarding her integrity received. Her fortunes changed, however, because her learned Inspecting Judge did not write her ACR for the year 1999 with the necessary promptitude. Then for the year 2000, before her ACR was due to be written, on 7th December, 2000, virtually at the fag end of the year under consideration, the Administrative committee of the High Court decided under the heading "any other matter with the permission of the Chair" that"for the present judicial work of the following judicial officers (be) withdrawn with immediate effect. "one of the officers so named was the Petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Petitioner was awarded A (Very Good) grading for the years 1997 and 1998 not only by her learned Inspecting Judges but also by the Full Court. The integrity of the Petitioner was found to be unimpeachable for these years. For the year 1999, the learned District Judge was of the view that she had maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality and that no complaint regarding her integrity had been received. The Petitioner was not counseled or told anything adverse by her learned inspecting Judges for the years 1999 and 2000 about her work, conduct or integrity. There is nothing on record to suggest the cause for a drop in performance or integrity of the Petitioner for the years 1999 and 2000. Without there being any material on record, suddenly the Administrative committee decided to withdraw judicial work from the Petitioner in its meeting held on 7th December, 2000. The decision was taken without even discussing the matter with the learned Inspecting Judges of the Petitioner for the years 1999 and 2000. Absolutely no material has been shown to us to give a hint about the basis on which the Administrative Committee withdrew judicial work from the petitioner. While the ACR of the Petitioner for the year 1999 ought to have been written within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the reporting year, the ACR was actually not written for more than a period of 12 months thereafter and when it was in fact being written on 16th January, 2001, the learned Inspecting Judge for the year 1999 was influenced by the decision taken by the Administrative committee on 7th December, 2000. We are of the opinion that the learned inspecting Judge ought not to have taken into account the material that had come to his knowledge after the conclusion of the reporting year. In so far as the ACR for the year 2000 is concerned, the learned Inspecting judge of the Petitioner did not give his assessment on the work, conduct or integrity of the Petitioner except when he participated in the deliberations of the Committee on 8th December, 2001 by which time the Administrative Committee had already decided to withdraw judicial work from the Petitioner, a factor that could have easily influenced him, as it did the learned Inspecting Judge of the petitioner for the year 1999. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that there was no proper objective assessment of the work, conduct or integrity of the Petitioner for the years 1999 and 2000 and, therefore, the grading of C (integrity doubtful)awarded to the Petitioner for those years deserves to be quashed and her ACRs for these two years require to be reconsidered.
Issues: Whether the Petitioner was awarded C (integrity doubtful) grading for the years 1999 and 2000 without any proper objective assessment of her work, conduct or integrity.
Ratio Decidendi: The ACRs of the Petitioner for the years 1999 and 2000 were quashed and her ACRs for these two years were required to be reconsidered because there was no proper objective assessment of her work, conduct or integrity for those years.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the gradings given to the petitioner in her ACRs for the years 1999 to 2004 were set aside. The matter was to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for taking a decision on the ACRs of the Petitioner for these years and for considering framing some rules for recording ACRs.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
( 1 ) THE facts of this case put on view, in essence, a rather unfortunate episode in the career of an officer belonging to the Delhi Judicial Service.
( 2 ) THE Petitioner was appointed to the Delhi Judicial Service in November, 1992 and was posted as a Sub Judge at Tees Hazari Courts in May, 1993. Her work and conduct did not draw any adverse comments - on the contrary, she received rather favourable gradings in her Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACRs)for the first few years of her service as can be seen from the chart given below:-
ACR for the year Grading 1993 B+ (Good) 1994 B+ (Good) 1995 B+ (Good) 1996 B (Average) 1997 A (Very Good) 1998 A (Very Good)
( 3 ) IN her ACR for the year 1997, against the question whether the petitioner has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality, her learned inspecting Judge remarked on 12th May, 1998 as follows:-"reputation is very good. " the ACR of the Petitioner for the year 1997 was approved by the Full Court of this Court in its meeting held on 18th July, 1998.
( 4 ) FOR the year 1998, the learned Inspecting Judge filled up the ACR of the Petitioner on 22nd April, 1999 and against the question whether the petitioner has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality, the learned inspecting Judge wrote as follows: "she maintains high integrity. She is honest and impartial. " the Full Court approved the ACR of the Petitioner for the year 1998 on 14th May, 1999.
( 5 ) FOR the year 1999, the learned District Judge, in response to a question (in relation to her ACR for that year) remarked as follows: has (she) maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality during the period under report" (Give reasons for your answer if it is negative or doubtful)Yes. No complaint regarding her integrity received. Her fortunes changed, however, because her learned Inspecting Judge did not write her ACR for the year 1999 with the necessary promptitude. Then for the year 2000, before her ACR was due to be written, on 7th December, 2000, virtually at the fag end of the year under consideration, the Administrative committee of the High Court decided under the heading "any other matter with the permission of the Chair" that"for the present judicial work of the following judicial officers (be) withdrawn with immediate effect. "one of the officers so named was the Petitioner. It may be mentioned, for the record, that the learned Inspecting Judges of the Petitioner for the years 1999 and 2000 were not members of the Administrative Committee, nor were they consulted or their opinion sought before the decision taken on 7th December, 2000. There is nothing on record to indicate what prompted the Administrative committee of the High Court to withdraw judicial work from the Petitioner.
( 6 ) A few days later, on 12th December, 2000, the Administrative Committee again met and decided that an earlier constituted Committee (for convenience called a Special Committee) which had enquired into the allegations in respect of three other judicial officers should also enquire into and report about the reputation and integrity of the six officers from whom judicial work was withdrawn (including the Petitioner) pursuant to the decision taken on 7th december, 2000. The Administrative Committee also decided that the Special committee would associate the concerned learned Inspecting Judge in the process of such evaluation and that further action would be taken on the basis of the report of the Special Committee.
( 7 ) AT this stage, it is necessary to mention that the Special Committee was constituted much earlier as a result of a resolution passed on 21st november, 1998 by the Full Court to the effect that in case a learned Judge has some doubt about the integrity of a judicial officer, then the case of that judicial officer may be referred to a Committee of learned Judges. The Full court resolution dated 21st November, 1998 reads as follows:-"it was decided that
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
