Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Rekha Sharma vs Raj High Court on 28 October, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: ORDER :: D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15272/2013 Smt.Rekha Sharma Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Date of Order : 28th October, 2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.Ravi Chirania, for the petitioner.
***** By the Court (Per Hon'ble Sharma, J.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with prayer for expunging adverse remarks made in her Annual Confidential Report and to issue direction to respondent for supplying copies of certain documents.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into the Rajasthan Judicial Service in August 1988. She was first posted in Ajmer as Munsif and Judicial Magistrate for four weeks' training. After successful probation, the petitioner was confirmed in Rajasthan Judicial Service vide order dated 30.8.1990. Thereafter, she was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 7.7.1997 and she was further granted selection scale of RJS vide order dated 15.7.2002 and was further promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate. In August, 2002 the petitioner was further promoted and posted as ADJ(FT) on ad hoc basis. In the year 2006 when the petitioner was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.2, Sikar, Rajasthan was also holding additional charge of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur (Sikar). The office which was being held by the petitioner was inspected by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sikar and the judicial work was found satisfactory and of unquestionable integrity. Thereafter after abolition of the post of ADJ(FT) Court in the State, the petitioner was continued as ADJ on ad hoc basis looking to her work efficiency, performance, unquestionable integrity and disposal of work etc. Thereafter, she was granted regular promotion as ADJ in accordance with the Rules and was posted as ADJ No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur. Thereafter, she was compulsorily retired vide order dated 24.5.2011. Thus, she claimed that till 24.5.2011, no adverse entry was ever conveyed to her throughout her service career, which remained unblemished. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a confidential letter dated 10.7.2012 from the office of the Registrar General of this Court whereby she was informed about remarks recorded in the annual confidential report of the year 2010, which reads as follows:-
2010- Ist : Integrity doubtful. Average 2010-II. Very bad reputation. Integrity doubtful. She was asked to send all orders/judgments of Nov. and Dec.2010. She sent 14 judgments, out of which she acquitted in 11 cases, discharged in two cases. In sessions case No.78/08 State Vs. Bhanwar Singh decided on 10.11.2010 she acquitted the accused in Minor girl Rape case. It smells badly. There was sufficient evidence for conviction of accused. Below average.
The petitioner has claimed that the adverse remarks regarding her integrity were made without any basis and the remarks were subjective in nature and founded on hearsay. She sent a request letter to the Registrar General of this Court (Ann.7) and demanded copies of certain documents on the basis of which the adverse remarks were made. Since the Registrar General allowed her for making representation against the adverse remarks, therefore, she was in need of documents prior to making representation, which the Registrar General denied and only allowed inspection of the documents and to take notes of the same by the pencil. Aggrieved by the adverse remarks made in her ACR and denial of the copies of the documents, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
In view of the facts, it is not considered essential to issue formal notice.
Heard Mr.Ravi Chirania, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned remarks awarded to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of not supplying the documents as demanded by the petitioner is per se illegal, arbitrary and unjustified as in the absence of the documents demanded by the petitioner, reply to the adverse remarks could not have been submitted. He further submitted that the Registrar General of this Court informed the petitioner about the remarks made in the ACR as adverse. Without there being any concrete and reliable proof or otherwise any complaint of any nature against the petitioner, no such remarks could have been made. Thus, he prayed for quashing of adverse remarks and further sought direction to the respondents to supply the documents as demanded by her.
We have considered the arguments made at the Bar.
The petitioner, on receipt of the adverse remarks sought some copies of documents on the basis of which the adverse remarks were made but the same was declined by the Registrar General of this Court and directed the petitioner for inspection of the documents only.
In the matter of annual confidential reports, the competent authority is not obligated to hold a fact finding enquiry on the parity of quasi judicial proceedings. Vis-a-vis the petitioner's contention that the remark of doubtful integrity must always be supported with cogent material, suffice it to state that though the reputation of a person is a subtle yet tangible constituent of his/her being, for a judicial officer, the same gets established in the course of his/her interaction with the litigating parties, members of the Bar, his peers and the public at large. It is not necessary that a judicial officer would always leave a trail of evidence leading to his or her disagreeable conduct or reputation. Integrity is an invaluable asset of a person, and to say the least, is an inalienable facet of a judicial officer's personality. The authorities entrusted with the task of evaluating the overall performance and suitability of a judicial officer to be continued in service undertake a solemn duty and have to essentially be cognizant of the level of integrity and honesty of the person concerned in the interest of the judicial institution and the service he/she is supposed to render to the society. Any remark on the integrity of a judicial officer though is not bereft of a subjective element, it is invariably based on objective ingredients.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the administrative norms adopted on the issue of availability of official records pertaining to the entries in the annual confidential reports of a judicial officer, in our view, the Registrar General of this Court did rightly refuse to supply the documents, as demanded by the petitioner.
Further, the petitioner has approached this Court without making any representation against the adverse remarks before the respondents and the Registrar General has allowed the petitioner to inspect the documents and to take necessary notes, this writ petition seems to be immature, which deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
However, she will have the liberty to inspect the documents as was permitted by the Registrar General of this Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and can make representation against the adverse remarks in her ACR before the respondent-High Court and in case the petitioner makes any representation before the respondent High Court, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. It is made clear that any observation made in this order, shall not affect the powers of the respondent while deciding the representation so made.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J. Skm & Skant/-
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA