1993 Supreme(Raj) 849
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Tek Chand - Appellant
Versus
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition.
Decided On : 21-12-1993
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Paras Kuhad, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.M. Lodha, Advocate.
The principles of natural justice are not attracted in the process of decision-making on the representation submitted by the aggrieved employee. However, the competent authority is required to consider the representation in a fair and just manner and cannot act arbitrarily.
Headnote:
JUDICIAL OFFICERS - SERVICE DISPUTES - YARDSTICK FOR ADJUDICATION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - COMMUNICATION OF ADVERSE REMARKS - DELAY IN COMMUNICATION - BASIS FOR ADVERSE REMARKS - ARBITRARINESS - REJECTION OF REPRESENTATION - FAIRNESS AND JUSTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, filed a writ petition challenging the adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1987. He also challenged the rejection of his representation against the adverse remarks.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the principles of natural justice are not attracted in the process of decision-making on the representation submitted by the aggrieved employee. However, the Court also held that the competent authority is required to consider the representation in a fair and just manner and cannot act arbitrarily.
Issues: 1. Whether the yardstick for adjudication of service disputes involving Judicial Officers should be different from the one applied in the cases of ordinary Civil Servants? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice are applicable to the decision of the representation made by an aggrieved Officer/employee against the adverse remarks communicated to him in his Annual Confidential Report? 3. Whether delay in communication of the adverse remarks is a ground for striking down the adverse entries? 4. Whether the adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner are baseless and arbitrary? 5. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation is unfair and arbitrary?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there cannot be any distinction between the members of the Judicial Service vis-à-vis other civil services for deciding the case filed by the Judicial Officers in the Court. A Court of law would be failing in the constitutional duty if arbitrary action taken against the Judicial Officers is upheld by applying the specious plea that the Judicial Service is different than other civil services. 2. The Court held that the principles of natural justice are not applicable to the decision of the representation made by an aggrieved Officer/employee against the adverse remarks communicated to him in his Annual Confidential Report. However, the Court also held that the competent authority is required to consider the representation in a fair and just manner and cannot act arbitrarily. 3. The Court held that delay in communication of the adverse remarks, unless properly explained, will be a ground for striking down the adverse entries. 4. The Court held that the adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner are baseless and arbitrary. 5. The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's representation is unfair and arbitrary.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 27.1.1990, and quashed the adverse entries made in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the years 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1987.
JUDGMENT
1. - Petitioner who is a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service has filed this petition with the prayer that adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982, 1983,1986 and 1987 may be ordered to be expunged and the order dated, 27th January 1990 by which his representations have been rejected, be set aside.
2. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1980. During last 13 years he has remained posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate as well as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. In the year 1982, the petitioner remained posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karauli, District Sawai Madhopur. Shri Govind Ram Bansal and Amar Nath Purohit were District Judges at Sawai Madhopur during that period. In the year 1983, the petitioner was posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, at Madal, District Bhilwara. Shri Amar Nath Purohit was District Judge, Bhilwara during the relevant year. In the years 1985 to June 1988 the petitioner remained posted as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jhalawar and during this period Shri Arvind Kumar Misra, Shri Amar Singh Godhara and Shri Navrang Rai Jatav were District Judges, Jhalawar for different periods. For the year 1982, the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks in his confidential report vide letter dated, 14.9.1989 of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court. For the year 1983 he was conveyed with adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report by communication dated, 14.9.1989 (Annex. 2) of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court. For the years 1986 and 1987 also the petitioner has been conveyed with adverse remarks vide communications dated, 14.9.1989 (Annexs. 3 and 4). On receipt of these communications the petitioner submitted applications Annexures-5, 6, 7 and 8 and requested that he may be supplied with the grounds on which adverse remarks were made in his Annual Confidential Reports. According to him, these grounds were not supplied to him. He therefore, made representations (Annexs. 9 to 12), dated 28.9.1989. These representations have been rejected by order dated, 27th January 1990 (Annex. 13). The petitioner has challenged the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports on the ground that remarks were communicated to him after a lapse of number of years and this abnormal delay in the communication of the adverse remarks has by itself made them insignificant. Asserting that on account of delay in communication of adverse remarks the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice, he has pleaded that adverse remarks should be quashed only on the ground of delayed communication. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that adverse opinions recorded in his Confidential Reports are without any basis and that the remarks are arbitrary and cryptic. He has challenged rejection of his representation on the ground of arbitrariness. He has pleaded that he had not been furnished with the material which constituted the basis of adverse remarks. Petitioner has stated that during January 1986 to June 1986 Shri A.K. Mishra was his District Judge. Between June 1987 and December 1987, Shri Navrang Rai was his District Judge. Neither of them made adverse remarks in his confidential reports. Shri Amar Singh Godhara was his third District Judge and he has made adverse remarks due to personal annoyance which was on account of a mandatory injunction passed by the petitioner against the then Collector, Jhalawar who happened to be the close of Shri Amar Singh Godhara. He has further claimed that there were no complaints against him from the members of the Bar during the years 1982 to 1983. His relations with the Bar were very cordial. On the basis of these submissions the petitioner has made the prayers as aforesaid.
3. In reply, the respondent has stated that the petitioner had remained posted as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Jhalawar between 30.5.198
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
