Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: MORADABAD in Jagdish Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 April, 1999Matching Fragments
3. According to the petitioner the impugned action has been taken against him only on the basis of adverse remarks awarded to him for the year 1994-95. The petitioner had earlier challenged the two adverse remarks awarded to him by the District Judge. Moradabad, besides the adverse remarks of the Hon'blc Inspecting Judge of the Moradabad Judgesriip for the year 1994-95 by filing Writ Petition No. 21348 of 1997, Jagdish. Singh v. High Court and another, which was withdrawn and thereafter he has filed the present writ petition in which both the adverse remarks for the year 1994-95 and the action of the State Government retiring the petitioner compulsorily have been challenged. The petitioner has alleged that the Hon'bte Inspecting Judge of the Moradabad Judgeship paid an incognito surprise visit to the Moradabad Bar on 18.4.1995 and later on made annual inspection of the Moradabad Judgeship from 22nd May to 28th May. 1995. The annual confidential remarks awarded by the District Judge. Moradabad to the petitioner for the year 1994-95 are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The relevant adverse portions of the said remarks are being quoted below :
"Integrity withheld subject to opinion of Hon'ble Inspecting Judge on the note submitted to his Lordship."
"The overall assessment of the merit of the officer has been adjudged as 'poor'. In the column of "other remarks, if any" the District Judge has mentioned that he commanded a bad reputation."
4. Under the heading of "remarks" in the annual confidential remarks, the District Judge, Moradabad, has added as under :
"The accused Vineet Kumar Chauhan alias Pintu surrendered in the Court in connection with Case Crime No. 379 of 1993 of P.S. Majhola under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C. later on converted under Sections 452 and 302. I.P.C. He applied for bail which was rejected by the then Sessions Judge, Moradabad. He was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate on 28.2.1994. After registration in the relevant register, the sessions trial was transferred to the Court of Sri Jagdish Singh, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, Shri Jagdish Singh granted bail by order dated 16.5.1994 ignoring the fact that the accused was refused bail twice by the Sessions Judge. Moradabad. Sri Jagdish Singh on 8.6.1994 when he was incharge Sessions Judge, Moradabad, granted bail to accused Dinesh Tillu in Crime No. 332 of 1994 under Section 302. I.P.C. P.S. Katghar ignoring the fact that he was not only refused bail but also his application for temporary ball was rejected by the Sessions Judge."
6. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has alleged that he had never been criticised by any one of as many as 21 different District Judges under whom he had worked with regard to the quality of his judicial work and integrity. The adverse remarks of the District Judge, Moradabad and the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of the Judgeship are based on inadequate data and the same are arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations. The petitioner made a representation against the adverse observations of the Hon'bie Inspecting Judge on 14.5.1995 and preferred a representation dated 21.10.1995 against the adverse report of the District Judge, Moradabad dated 12.9.1995. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 14.5.1996 against the adverse observations of the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge in the annual inspection note and the third representation dated 22.8.1996 against the annual remarks recorded by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge.
9. A confidential report from the District Judge. Moradabad was also received by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge which was sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for His Lordship's perusal and orders. It was submitted by the District Judge. Moradabad that on 15.4.1995 when he was on leave the petitioner in the capacity of Incharge Sessions Judge granted bail in a case of public notoriety. Besides this, the District Judge had stated that the petitioner had also connections with caucus of a few lawyers and notorious persons of the city and commanded a very bad reputation in the Judgeship. The respondents relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition No. 249 of 1992 arising out of Writ Petition No. 1032 of 1989, decided on 24.8.1996. All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others, observed as under :