The petitioner in this writ petition is one of our own - a serving Principal Munsiff. He is aggrieved by certain adverse remarks that have been entered in his service records, as a consequence of which he has been denied the benefit of a higher scale of pay under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, and probably stands to lose much more in the years to come. He commenced service as a Munsiff Magistrate from 21.10.2002 and was posted as Munsiff Magistrate at Androth, on deputation. The 2nd respondent was the District Judge at Kavarati during that time and he was also the immediate superior officer and reporting authority of the petitioner. There appears to have been some irreconcilable differences between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and there were instances of the 2nd respondent alleging improper discharge of duty by the petitioner and the petitioner alleging harassment at the hands of the 2nd respondent. It was probably on this count that the petitioner, who had joined as Munsiff-Magistrate at Androth on 02.06.2010 sought a transfer to the mainland, through Ext.P2 application dated 01.09.2010. The said application was eventually acted upon and the petitioner was repatriated and posted as a 1st Class Judicial Magistrate at Kunnamangalam with effect from 15.05.2011.

2. As part of the administrative procedure in the subordinate judicial service, the petitioner was required to submit a self appraisal form in respect of the service rendered by him as a Munsiff- Magistrate at Androth. The petitioner submitted his self-appraisal form (Ext.P16) on 25.06.2011. The 2nd respondent, before whom the form was submitted, called for some details in respect of contested cases and the petitioner supplied the same through Ext.P20 explanation. On 18.01.2012, the petitioner received Ext.P21 communication, informing him of the adverse entries made in his confidential records. The entries in his confidential records are extracted hereunder:

PART III

(Assessment by the Reporting Authority)

1. Please comment on Part II as filled in by the Officer and state specifically whether you agree with this answers.	I do not agree with the statement for the following reasons: (Kindly see additional sheet)
2. Please comment on the Officer's quality of performance and knowledge of law and procedure. Please mention instances of cases where the quality is not upto the standard.	He is a knowledgeable officer. But quality of work is poor. He writes orders/judgments in cryptic, telegraph language. Instances are CP 1/10, CC 8/09, 17/06, 4/09, 7/09 etc.
3. Comment on the quantity of disposal of cases by the Officer, indicating also any constraints the Officer had in the disposal of work.	He has disposed of all civil matters pending before him, but has adopted slip-shod methods for achieving disposal. Instances are OS 6/08, OS 2/11, OS 4/11, OS 5/11.
4. Please comment on the capacity of the Officer to motive, to obtain willing support by own conduct and capacity to inspire confidence of the subordinate staff	All his subordinates are from native island. Many of them found difficult to work with him. The then Head Clerk, the CMO was eager to get a transfer from the court, during this tenure.
5. Please indicate the quality of relationship with superior Officers, colleagues, subordinates and members of the Bar.	(Kindly see the additional sheet)
6. State of Health	Sound
7. Period under observation of Reporting Officer	From 2/6/10 to 25/6/11
8. Integrity 9. Please give an overall assessment of the Officer with reference to his/her judicial, administration and character and also indicate qualities, if any, not covered by the above entries.	Though there is no instance to doubt his integrity, it is ce