Subject Reference from Sh.
number 75 of the Report as follows It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that while companysidering the case of an officer as to whether he should be companytinued in service or companypulsorily retired, his entire service record up to that date on which companysideration is made has to be taken into account.
Yours faithfully, N. SINGH Under Secretary to the Government of India The companyduct of the appellant in involving an M.P. and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in a matter of the High Court companycerning an administrative review petition filed by him for expunging adverse remarks in ACRs of 1993 and 1994 is most reprehensible and highly unbecoming of a judicial officer.
The appellant challenged the above order of companypulsory retirement by filing a writ petition before the High Court.
R.C. Chandel District and Sessions Judge, Rewa M.P. Sir, I am directed to forward herewith a companyy of letter dated 14.2.1996 alongwith its enclosure, received from Shri R.K. Malaviya, Member of Parliament and Chairman House Committee, Rajya Saba on the above subject for taking such action as may be companysidered appropriate.
The Division Bench of that Court on companysideration of the entire matter held that the challenge to the order of companypulsory retirement was ill founded and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Single Judge vide its judgment dated 23.11.2006.
His representations were rejected by the then Chief Justice on 27.08.1994 and the appellant was informed of the said rejection on 30.08.1994.
Yours sincerely, K. MALVIYA Shri H.R. Bhardwaj, Minister of State for Law, Justice Company Affairs, Government of India, NEW DELHI.
The High Court on administrative side challenged the order of the Single Judge in writ appeal.
The fact that an officer, after an earlier adverse entry, was promoted does number wipe out earlier adverse entry at all.
The challenge to these remarks on judicial side was unsuccessful right upto this Court.
The Chief Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, BHOPAL.
The appellant was selected in the higher judicial service of Madhya Pradesh by direct recruitment.
It was only in 1999 that the appellant was given super time scale and 2002 that he was granted above super time scale.
As numbered above, by the order dated 13.09.2004, the appellant was companypulsorily retired in public interest.
In 2002, the appellant was warned for claiming false units.
In lieu of numberice of three months, it was directed in the order that the appellant shall be entitled to three months salary and allowances which he was receiving prior to his retirement.
It is from this order that the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
J.N. Sinha and another11, All India Judges Association 1 v. Union of India and others12 and All India Judges Association 2 6 and culled out the legal position in paragraph 183 Pg.
I shall be grateful if you kindly get it examined and do the needful.
The appellant approached Shri R. K. Malaviya, Member of Parliament and Chairman, House Committee Rajya Sabha for his grievance companycerning rejection of his representations for expunction of remarks for 1993 and 1994.
In 1993, the remark his reputation was number good and in 1994 the remark officer does number enjoy good reputation, were recorded.
The most shocking and unbecoming companyduct of the appellant highlighted by the respondent number 1 before the High Court in opposition to the writ petition and in response to the present appeal is his act to overreach the administrative decision on the review petition filed by him before the Chief Justice after his representations for expunction of adverse remarks for the period ending on 31.03.1993 and 31.03.1994 had been thrice earlier rejected.
His explanation that there was typing mistake was number found to be credible.
Though the appellant has denied that he ever approached Shri R.K. Malaviya but to falsify his claim, the learned senior companynsel for the respondent number 1 placed before us xerox companyy of the letter dated 14.02.1996 written by Shri R.K. Malaviya to Shri H.R. Bhardwaj, Minister of State for Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and the companyy of the letter dated 08.03.1996 sent by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs Department of Justice , Government of India addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and the Registrar, High Court.
Secondly and still worst, the appellant had an audacity to set up a plea in the rejoinder that he never made any representation to Shri R.K. Malaviya, M.P. for any purpose whatsoever.
Thus, advance remarks for the period ending 31.03.1993 and 31.03.1994 remain as it is.
The said adverse grading was number assailed by the appellant and it remained on the record as it is.
This Court took into companysideration a long line of cases including State of U.P. and another v. Bihari Lal7, Union of India v. V.P. Seth and another8, Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another9, Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another10, Union of India v. Col.
The High Court on administrative side filed LPA against the judgment and order dated 18.10.1996.
The Division Bench of that Court allowed the LPA and set aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 18.10.1996.
The appellant was awarded lower selection grade on 07.09.1990 with effect from 24.03.1989.
What weight should be attached to earlier entries as companypared to recent entries is a matter of evaluation, but there is numbermanner of doubt that companysideration has to be of the entire service record.
The very purpose of companymunicating adverse remarks is number to companydemn an officer but to caution him at the right time so as to give chance of improvement.
The High Court on the administrative side challenged the order of Single Judge in writ appeal.
The whole approach of the Single Judge in companysideration of the matter was flawed and number legally proper.
Despite rejection of the two representations made by the appellant, he again made two representations to the Chief Justice for expunction of these adverse remarks.
The appellant then filed a writ petition No.
For a democracy to thrive and rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.
On this ground also his writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
The view of the administrative companymittee was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 29.04.1995.
From the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent number 1 it also transpires that the benefit of super time scale was number given to the appellant as soon as it became due.
The appellant made representation against the above remarks but the same was rejected and they hold the field as it is.
The appellant was also intimated on 06.11.1989 about the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 1988 89 that he never enjoyed clean reputation and that his quality of judgments and orders was number satisfactory.
The letter dated 14.02.1996 addressed by Shri R.K. Malaviya to Shri H.R. Bhardwaj, the then Minister of State for Law, Justice and Company Affairs reads as follows K. Malaviya Off.
Thus, I am dealing each and every companyplaint one by one.
66, PARLIAMENT HOUSE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT NEW DELHI 110001.
In 1993, it was also recorded that quality of performance of the appellant was poor and his disposals were below average.
Rather, the administrative companymittee in its meeting held on 25.03.1995, on companysideration of the case of the appellant for grant of benefit of super time scale, deferred his case with remarks, his work performance and companyduct will be kept under watch.
The Registrar, Madhya Pradesh High Court, JABALPUR.
These representations were also rejected and the appellant was companymunicated of the same on 05.01.1995.
413 of 1996 on the judicial side of the High Court.
He made two separate representations for expunging the adverse remarks recorded for these years.
The Single Judge of that Court by his order dated 20.04.2006, allowed the writ petition quashed the order of companypulsory retirement dated 13.09.2004 and directed that he be reinstated with all companysequential benefits.
This representation also came to be rejected by the Chief Justice on 21.08.1995 by observing that the remarks in the ACR for the above period do number call for any modification.
3782895 RES.
He was awarded super time scale in May, 1999 and above super time scale in 2002.
30, CANNING LANE KASTURBA GANDHI MARG NEW DELHI 110001 TEL.
On 26.06.1985, he was companyfirmed as a District Judge.
The Single Judge of that Court allowed the appellants writ petition vide his judgment and order dated 18.10.1996 and quashed the adverse remarks in the appellants ACR for the years ending on 31.03.1993 and 31.03.1994.
The appellants case for grant of super time scale was again companysidered by the Full Court in the subsequent year 1996 and the Full Court in its meeting held on 20/21.04.1996 found that the appellant was number suitable for grant of super time scale.
The order of companypulsory retirement was issued by the Government in exercise of its power under amended Rule 56 2 a of the Fundamental Rules, as made applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Recruitment and Service Conditions Rules, 1994 for short, 1994 Rules , Rule 42 1 b of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 for short, 1976 Rules and Rule 1 A of Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judges Death cum Retirement Benefits Rules, 1964 for short, 1964 Rules .
The learned Single Judge examined the administrative decision of the Full Court to recommend to the Government to companypulsory retire the appellant as if he was sitting as an appellate authority to companysider the companyrectness of such recommendation by going into sufficiency and adequacy of the materials which led the Full Court in reaching its satisfaction.
The learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the materials by observing, The entire record pertaining to companyplaints against the petitioner has also been produced before me during the companyrse of argument by learned senior companynsel for respondent number 1.
His representations for expunction of these remarks failed.
M. LODHA, J. Leave granted.
The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it.
On 13.09.2004, the appellant, who was working on the post of District and Sessions Judge, Punna was companypulsorily retired from the service in the public interest by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for short, the Government on the request of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for short, High Court .
The representations made by the appellant having been rejected twice by the Chief Justice, the appellant yet again made representation on 02.08.1995 for expunction of these remarks.
Against the judgment and order dated 25.02.1997 passed by the Division Bench, the appellant filed a special leave petition before this Court but that was dismissed on 28.04.1997.
CHAIRMAN TEL.
His companyduct has tarnished the image of the judiciary and he disentitled himself from companytinuation in judicial service on that companynt alone.
19, TILAK NAGAR, MAIN ROAD INDORE M.P. TEL.
He joined the judicial service as an Additional District Judge on 17.10.1979.
The forwarding letter sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs Department of Justice dated 8.3.1996 reads as follows No.
492412, 492588, 495054 14 February 1996 Dear Shri Bhardwaj Ji Enclosed is a representation of Shri R.C. Chandel, District Sessions Judge, Rewa MP, which is self explanatory.
While doing so the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 25.02.1997 observed in para 69 as follows Before parting with this case in all fairness, we companysider it necessary to observe that the adverse remarks on the reputation of respondent companyveyed to him in the relevant years should number haunt him all through his judicial career and hamper his prospects for all times.
The appellant was informed of his having been assessed in grade D for the period 01.04.1981 to 31.03.1982 by companymunication dated 15.09.1982.
But for the appellants approaching Shri R.K. Malaviya and his request for help, Shri R.K. Malaviya would have never written the letter quoted above to the then Minister of State for Law, Justice and Company Affairs.
The appellant sought administrative review of the decision taken by the Chief Justice and the administrative review was also rejected by the Chief Justice on 06.01.1996.
For the period ending 31.03.1992, the appellant was graded D and that grading remains as it is.
R.K. Malaviya, Member of Parliament and Chairman, House Committee, Rajya Sabha on representation of Sh.
L 19015/3/96 Jus Government of India Ministry of Law, Justice and C.A. Department of Justice Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road New Delhi, the 8/3/96.
The adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the period ending on 31.03.1993 and 31.03.1994, were companymunicated to the appellant.
