The burden of proof lies upon the party who has to prove a fact, and once a representation against an order is rejected, an employee cannot make another representation seeking the same relief.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the communications dated 26. 5. 2003 and 19. 3. 2004 by the Joint Registrar of the High Court, Allahabad. By the first communication, it has been informed to the petitioner that his representation against the adverse entry of censure has been rejected by the Administrative Committee of the Court, while by the second communication, he has been informed that the second representation/memorial against the adverse entry has been rejected as not maintainable.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, an officer of the up. Higher Judicial Service, has been given the censure entry for the year 1999-2000 for not furnishing correct information in the self-assessment form for the purpose of recording A. C. Rs. and for retaining the files in bail matters after granting bail to the accused persons, for about a month, and because of not sending the files to the office, persons who had been granted bail had to remain in jail for a month unnecessarily as for want of bail orders, they could not execute bail bonds for their release from custody. Against the said adverse entry, petitioner made a representation on 9. 4. 2001. However, vide letter dated 26. 5. 2003, he was informed that the said representation stood rejected. A memorial dated 6. 9. 2003 was sent by the petitioner to the Court, and vide Communication dated 19. 3. 2004 he has been informed that his memorial has been rejected as not maintainable.

( 3 ) IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that adverse entry had been made by the Administrative Judge, and the same Honble Judge sat in the meeting of the administrative Committee and participated when the matter was taken, up, and gave his opinion for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. This was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. More so there could be no justification for giving the adverse entry of censure for retaining the files for a month, as it was the duty of the Sessions Clerk to collect the files the same had been retained on the oral instructions of the District Judge as he wanted the lawyers to call off the strike during the relevant period. Adverse entry had been given without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, both the communications are liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, Shri K. R. Sirohi, learned Counsel appearing for the Allahabad High Court has submitted that as the files relating to bails had been retained by the petitioner in his Box, the same could not be taken by the Sessions Clerk. The accused persons who had been granted bail had, therefore, to remain in jail for about a month, and this happened in eight cases. He further submitted that as the petitioner had passed the bail orders as the Incharge District Judge, the question of oral instructions by the District Judge could not arise. The District Judge as a reporting Officer, did not mention about the bail orders and the Administrative Judge noticed the same during the annual inspection of the Court. The matter had been referred to the committee of two Honble Judges and the Committee submitted its report that the representation of the petitioner was not worth acceptance. The Administrative Committee considered the case on 10th May, 2003 and rejected the representation considering the fact that in eight cases, the accused remained in jail for about a month because the files had not been sent to the office. The second memorial was rejected by the Honble Chief Justice on 12. 3. 2004 as the memorial/second representation/review was not maintainable in view of the Full Court Resolution dated 6. 1. 1990. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order. More so, it has been pointed out by Shri sirohi that the minutes of the Administrative Committee dated 10th May, 2003 revealed that honble Administrative Judge remained absent when the matter relating to petitioners represent