2018 Supreme(P&H) 1774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
A.B. Chaudhari, Kuldip Singh, JJ.
Ravinder Singh – Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and another – Respondents
CWP-1161-2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Service Law – Judicial Officer – Adverse Remarks – If there are civil consequences, necessary and reasonable opportunity should be given to concerned person before recording adverse remarks.
Service Law – Judicial Officer – Spoken Reputation – It cannot be relied upon to record adverse remarks and at the most, it has to be treated as 'advisory' and in any case not an adverse remarks.
Service Law – Judicial Officer – Adverse Remarks – In absence of any specific complaint the administration Judge cannot record that officer does not have good reputation.
Service Law – Judicial Officer – False Complaint – Duty of High Court – It is imperative that the High Court should take steps to protect honest judicial officers by ignoring ill- conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.

Headnote:(A) Service Law – Premature Retirement – Judicial Officer – Reinstatement – Present case is a fit case where the principle of lifting of veil to find the real cause for premature retirement of the petitioner needs to be applied – In the present case, though it is stated that the petitioner has been retired in public interest but one of the real cause was the unauthenticated complaint, which though found to be vague and the disciplinary proceedings would have been exercise in futility, but the same was ordered to be put up before the Full Court at the time of retention of the petitioner in service and the same was considered by the Full Court – The consideration of the said complaint was given an impression that as if the allegations in the said complaint have been fully proved and the officer is dishonest officer – Held; adverse remarks in the ACRs for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are liable to be expunged and the said complaint is also liable to be ignored being baseless – Order of premature retirement set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with all conseqential benefits. (Para 65)

       (B) Service Law – False Complaint – Judicial Officer – Duty of High Court – While exercising control over subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court is under a Constitutional obligation to guide and protect subordinate judicial officers – An honest and strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries – If complaints are entertained in trifling matters and if the High Court encourages anonymous complaints, no judicial officer would feel secure and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner – It is imperative that the High Court should take steps to protect honest judicial officers by ignoring ill- conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. (Para 58)

       (C) Service Law – Judicial Officer – Adverse Remarks – Judicial Review – Writing of ACRs against an officer/employee are akin to quasi judicial function – If there are civil consequences, necessary and reasonable opportunity should be given to concerned person – If it was a case of gathering over all report on the general reputation of the officer, the most damaging remarks ought to have been supported by material evidence/ reasoning or in the alternative, the petitioner should have been given opportunity to meet those allegations by way of furnishing copy of the complaint and to seek his explanation against those allegations. (Para 18)

       (D) Service Law – Adverse Remarks – Judicial Officer – In absence of any specific complaint the administration Judge cannot record that officer does not have good reputation – Administration Judge exercise quasi judicial function while recording adverse remarks – Therefore, it must be supported by the material or reasoning – In present case, such adverse remarks set aside. (Para 29)

       (E) Service Law – Adverse Remarks – Judicial Officer – Minor defects are bound to be found in the working of every Court and the officers have to be accordingly advised – However, 100% perfection may not be possible – Therefore, these remarks could not be made the basis for recording 'C' Below Average report. (Para 35)

       (F) Service Law – Adverse Remarks – Judicial Officer – Spoken Reputation – (i) the term 'spoken reputation' is having very dangerous consequences – Therefore, it cannot be relied upon to record adverse remarks and at the most, it has to be treated as 'advisory' and in any case not an adverse remark; (ii) While exercising the quasi judicial functions of recording ACRs, the High Court being the Constitutional Authority, has to be fairer than the fair and set bench marks for the other authorities. (Para 44)

       It is observed that while working as a Judge in the district judiciary, the officer has to pass many judgments, which may not be of liking of some of the parties being adverse to them. Therefore, they might be nursing a grudge against the petitioner. The same can also be held true of the bar members. The officer, while working as a Judge in the district judiciary, thus, makes many hidden enemies, who might be speaking ill of him. Therefore, it will be very dangerous to rely upon the views of said aggrieved persons, without any supporting material. In case, any material is found, the same has to be confronted to the officer so as to give him an opportunity to explain the same. Similarly, specific complaints have to be confronted to him to give him an opportunity to explain. Therefore, there is nothing, on the basis of which, 'spoken reputation' for integrity was found to be poor as there was no material on file, and still, there is no material on file to show that the reputation of the petitioner for the integrity was poor. Therefore, without any material, it will be unjust to paint any officer as having 'poor spoken reputation for integrity'. (Para 43)

       (G) Service Law – False Complaint – Judicial Officer – Tendency of making false and fabricated complaints against the Judges at all level specially, the district judiciary and also referred to the extract of the order that such complaints should be accompanied by duly sworn in affidavit and verifiable material, to substantiate allegations made therein. (Para 52)