Pursuant to the issuance of numberice to the High Court of Delhi, a reply has been filed stating that as per the judgment of the High Court dated 06.07.2006, a companyy of the said judgment was placed in the personal file service record of the appellant as also before the then Honble Inspecting Judge for the year 2006.
Thereafter, he was posted as Addl.
12.09.2007.
District and Sessions Judge on 13.09.2005.
When the file of the aforesaid suit was put up before the appellant for retrial, then only he numbericed the adverse remarks made against him by the High Court.
Sessions Judge, NDPS at Patiala House Courts w.e.f.
13584 of 2006 in R.F.A. No.
The High Court, vide letter dated 01.08.2008, has companymunicated to the appellant the ACR for the year 2007 which has been downgraded from B to B. Therefore, he submitted his representation to the High Court for review of the said ACR.
A suit for recovery which was filed in the year 1984 in the Delhi High Court by the first respondent against second respondent herein, subsequently on enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, was transferred to the District Court.
On a companyplaint dated nil made by one Shri G.S. Gorkal, the Committee of Honble Inspecting Judges for the year 2008 ordered that the same may be companysidered at the time of awarding ACR grading.
12.09.2007 he had assigned much more responsible and onerous task of presiding as a Designated Judge Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for companyducting the trial of NDPS cases.
Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and the High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2006, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and remanded the case to the trial Court.
While granting permission to file special leave petition, this Court has impleaded the High Court of Delhi as party respondent.
The High Court, by order dated 23.03.2007, disposed of the application stating that the remarks are only companyrective in nature and do number suggest any lack of integrity on the part of the officer.
The Annual Confidential Report in short ACR of the appellant from the years 2000 to 2006 has been companysistently graded as B and the High Court has promoted him to the Super time Scale also.
The ACR for the year 2006 was companymunicated to him on 21.08.2007.
On companysideration of overall performance of the appellant during the year 2007, the Committee of Honble Inspecting Judges in the meeting held on 15.07.2008, for the year 2007 recorded his ACR as B. The said remarks were companymunicated to him by letter dated 01.08.2008.
To the best knowledge of the appellant, there is numberreport or companyplaint about his work or companyduct by anyone in the year 2007.
The said representation was duly companysidered and rejected by a decision dated 01.09.2008 of the Full Court and the same was companymunicated to the appellant vide letter dated 22.09.2008.
The appellant immediately filed an application in the High Court for expunction of the aforesaid remarks.
The appellant was graded as B for the years 2000 to 2006 by the Full Court of the Delhi High Court.
On the basis of his service record w.e.f.
If the said remarks in the judgment dated 06.07.2006 are number expunged, it would affect his future prospects and if the same are allowed to stay and the ACR is number re casted, the appellant would suffer substantial loss in future as he has left with eight years of service for superannuation and he is in the zone of companysideration for elevation to the Bench of the Delhi High Court.
On the basis of his performance at the relevant time, he was granted Super time Scale of Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
The High Court, while remanding the case, made certain remarks and directions against the appellant.
The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder The appellant, who is a Member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, posted as Addl.
As sufficient opportunities were given to the plaintiff to lead evidence, the appellant, on 19.12.2005, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
These appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment and final orders of the High Court of Delhi dated 06.07.2006 and 23.03.2007 in R.F.A. No.178 of 2006 and in M. No.
The appellant had made representation dated 19.08.2008 for review of Grade B for the year 2007.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
178 of 2006 respectively whereby the High Court declined to expunge the adverse remarks made against the appellant.
District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, was transferred in the place of Shri Satnam Singh, Addl.
The appellant, who is a Judicial Officer, is number challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2006 of the High Court to the limited extent whereby the Division Bench passed certain adverse remarks against him.
