Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.11170 of 2012 and 15682 of 2012 inter-partes, raising the questions, which are interdependent.

CWP No.11170 of 2012.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash the Annual Inspection Remarks dated 23.10.2008 for the year 2007-08; the orders dated 5.9.2011 and 3.2.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services.

3. The petitioner joined as a Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on 28.7.1997, as a member of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The petitioner was promoted as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in March, 2005. He was transferred as such to Narwana on 28.5.2007. The petitioner was later transferred vide order dated 19.5.2008 to Dadri from Narwana.

4. It was on 23.10.2008, the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks of ‘Integrity C-Below Average’ and ‘Integrity Doubtful’ for the year 2007-08 for the period, he was posted at Narwana. In Column No.7, it was recorded that there were complaints against the Officer. In respect of column of General Assessment, it was recorded ‘as per sheet attached’. The remarks recorded in the said attached sheet read as under:-

“The Officer has knowledge of law and is capable of doing good work. However, during the assessment year, there were complaints in regard to his integrity.

In a matter, which has been taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme court of India and no relief had been granted, the Officer passed orders and adopted an abnormal procedure, which raised suspicion.

The procedure adopted by Shri Arya gives a clear picture of the manner in which the proceedings were being moulded for an eventual favourable order. The matter was marked by me for a discreet inquiry to the District Judge. Agreeing with the recommendations of the District Judge, I ordered transfer of the case. My unambiguous conclusion is that the conduct of the Officer was not above board.

I expressly confronted him the sequence of events, the unusual approach of the Officer and the procedure adopted. The Officer admitted that he had never adopted the same procedure hither-to-for.

There were numerous complaints against the Officer of leave the station without intimation or permission, without regard to various High Court instructions. The Officer had to be advised to be careful in future.

The behavior of the Officer towards the members of Bar was harsh and he needs to treat the lawyers with courtesy.”

5. The reference to a case, admittedly, in the Note is to the anticipatory bail application filed by Babu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) and dealt with by the Petitioner. The other comments are said to be advisory by the learned Administrative Judge himself.

Some background in which, the bail application was placed before and dealt with by the Petitioner are necessary to be stated. It was on 1.8.2007, the accused in FIR No.75 dated 17.3.2007 for the offences under Sections 20, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station, City Narwana, moved an application for surrender and bail in the Court presided over by the petitioner. The accused referred to an order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 3609 / 2007, whereby the arrest of the accused was stayed for a period of one month. The said order reads as under:-

“Let the matter be listed before appropriate Bench two weeks hence. The petitioner shall not be arrested till one month from today.”

6. At this stage, it may be mentioned that earlier the accused sought anticipatory bail from this Court. The said application for anticipatory bail came to be decided on 9.5.2007 when the application for anticipatory bail of other accused was allowed, but that of the accused was dismissed. The accused, the Chairman of the Mittaso Animal Welfare and Protection Society, is said to have admitted students, in its Vete