645. [ Communication of adverse remarks to Judicial Officers. [Substituted by Notification No. 553/VIII-b-1, dated 3-9-1984 (w.e.f. 8-12-1984).]
(1)Communication to the Judicial Officer for adverse remarks made against them in their confidential report shall be regulated as follows :(1)(a)Remarks whether commendatory or critical made on the work and conduct of Judicial Officers should be communicated as a whole to the officers concerned by the District Judges in writing and acknowledgement obtained, soon after the despatch to the High Court.(b)Adverse remarks should invariably be communicated to the officer concerned so that they may not be ignorant of the shortcomings pointed out therein, but only those defects need be pointed out which can be remedied. A note that the adverse remarks have been communicated should be made at the end of the remarks and this should be done before despatching the same to the High Court.(c)Where a report is built upon the individual opinion as noted of different superiors in gradation, it is only the opinion as accepted by the highest authority which need be considered from the point of view of communication.(d)Where the criticism is to be withheld the final authority to consider the report should record instructions, with reason, according to the nature of the defect discussed, as to the period for which communication is to be kept back.(e)The reporting officer should specifically state whether the defect reported has already been brought in any other connection to the notice of the officer concerned.(f)Remarks in cases in which the State Government or head of a department of other officer suspends judgment should not be communicated.(g)Great attention should be paid to the manner and method of communication in order to ensure that the advice given and the warning or censure administered, whether orally or in writing shall, having regard to the temperament of the officer concerned, be most beneficial to him :Provided that when an officer, particularly a junior one, is deficient in his work it is not always enough to make an entry to that effect in his character roll and to communicate it to him. Efforts should rather be made to give such officer an opportunity of learning and for effective improvement in his work. A District Judge should, therefore, take more personal interest in the work of judicial officers subordinate to him and in case the work of any such officer is not upto mark he should point out to him his failings and defects at a personal interview and help him with personal advice or put him in touch with one of the more experienced officer in the station.(2)The above procedure should govern report of a periodical nature. There are others which may either be-(i)reports of particular incidents or acts, which, if disciplinary action is taken, require either regular proceedings, or definite censure after the defence of the officer concerned has been taken;(ii)reports in reply to inquiries whether an officer who has not been well reported on in the past has improved and is fit for promotion; or(iii)reports in answer to request for opinions as to the fitness of an officer for a particular appointment, etc.No special instructions are necessary in respect of item (i). As to items (ii) and (iii) remarks should not be communicated unless they disclose facts or allegations which in the opinion of the State Government should be conveyed to the officer concerned. If such remarks were invariably communicated there is little doubt that reporting officers would be discouraged from giving unreserved advice, and opinions of value would thereby be lost.]
