Service Law – Adverse Remarks – Adverse ACR must be supported by the material justifying such remarks

Mr. Kuldip Singh J. - Petitioner was appointed to P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class on 09.06.1992. He was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 23.02.2008 for Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Thereafter, he was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge and was posted at Ludhiana, vide order dated 29.06.2009. The Administrative Judge of Ludhiana Sessions Division for the year 2010-11 recorded the following adverse remarks in his ACR:

Year	Remarks by the High Court	Adverse/advisory remarks if any
2010-2011	C Below Average- Integrity Doubtful	7	Integrity	Integrity doubtful. Despite apprising the officer to improve his reputation but in vague
		Part III	Remarks of the Administrative Judge	This officer could have proved an asset to the institution but he has failed to keep his reputation as per the standard of the judicial officer
				He is advised to read the files thoroughly.

2. Petitioner claimed that he had been working with full devotion. During his service, he upgraded his educational qualification and completed Masters-of-laws (LL.M) from Kurukshetra University, Haryana, for which he was given advanced increments. The petitioner was never apprised to improve his reputation either in writing or verbally. No complaints were mentioned. The petitioner made the representation, which was rejected by the Full Court and his ACR for the year 2010-11 ‘Integrity Doubtful’ was confirmed.

3. The petitioner further claimed that before and after the said ACR, his ACRs are ‘B+ (Good)’. Therefore, prayer is made for quashing the said ACR along with the orders rejecting the representation and confirming the ACR.

4. The High Court in its written statement has taken the stand that during the entire service period of petitioner, there were several complaints against the petitioner from the years 1995-2005 and 2010 to 2013. Reference has also been made to the complaints, which shows that the complaints were filed. It was stated that the remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2010-11 was correctly recorded. The remarks recorded in the ACR of a judicial officer is based on many factors and material which is gathered by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge from different sources. The observation made in the ACR is self-explanatory, which does not need any further clarification. The rejection of the representation and confirmation of the ACR are not denied.

5. The entire summary of the ACRs of the petitioner from the years 1992-1993 till the date is reproduced as under:

Year	Remarks by the High Court	Adverse/advisory remarks if any
1992-1993	B (Satisfactory)	5	Is he an efficient Judicial Officer?	Not yet. Advised to work hard and read files at home.
1993-1994	B (Satisfactory)
1994-1995	B Plus (Good)
1995-1996	B-Average	6	Has he maintained Judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality?	There were written complaints. Separate Note added. To be kept under watch.
1996-1997	B-Average
1997-1998	B-Average
1998-1999	B Plus (Good)
1999-2000	B Plus (Good)
2000-2001	B Plus (Good)
2001-2002	B Plus (Good)
2002-2003	B Plus (Good)
2003-2004	B Plus (Good)
2004-2005	B Plus (Good)
2005-2006	B Plus (Good)
2006-2007	A-Very Good
2007-2008	B Plus (Good)
2008-2009	B Plus (Good)
2009-2010	B Plus (Good)	8	General Assessment-regarding strength and shortcomings:	A