IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5286 of 2000 Date of Decision: 22.11.2011. Daman Kumar Sarpal --Petitioner Versus High Court of Punjab & Haryana & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent no.2. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner in this petition was appointed as a Judicial Officer on 8.2.1977. He served at various placed in the State of Punjab from time to time. While he was posted as Sub Judge, Ludhiana, Sh. D.S. Dhaliwal, the then District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana made a complaint to the High Court regarding the conduct of the petitioner in dealing with an execution matter pending before him on the basis of a complaint dated 26.4.1990 made by one Smt. Raj Rani. It was also reported that the petitioner even showed insubordination and refused to send his comments to the District & Sessions Judge. The petitioner was, thereafter, transferred to Tarn Taran on 10.9.1990. It is alleged that during this period Sh.G.S. Dhaliwal, who was earlier District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and who had lodged a complaint with the High Court against the petitioner came to be posted as District & Session Judge, Vigilance in the High Court. It is also alleged that CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -2- Sh. Amar Dutt, who was Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar was batch mate of Sh. Dhaliwal and both of them humiliated and tortured the petitioner. Petitioner's court was inspected by the then Administrative Judge Justice G.R. Majithia during the year 1991-92 at Tarn Taran and following adverse remarks were made against the petitioner:- 1. Knowledge of law Poor 2. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases and has he coped effectively with heavy work. Regarding disposal of cases, there is no complaint but most of these are are disposed of for extraneous reasons for which he enjoys notoriety. 5. Is he an efficient Judicial Officer. He has yet to prove so. 6. Has he maintained Judicial Reputation for honesty and impartiality. Reputation stinking. 9. Net result. C (below average). A representation made by the petitioner against these remarks after a personal hearing was rejected on 11.5.1993. It is also stated that earlier “C Below Average” grading awarded to the petitioner was upgraded by the High Court suo motu as “B Satisfactory”. During the year 1992-93 petitioner's court was inspected by Justice K.P. Bhandari, the then Inspecting Judge, who also gave “C Below Average” grading to the petitioner for the said year, which was conveyed to the petitioner. It is alleged that this report was conveyed to the petitioner after a period of three years. Petitioner made representation against these adverse remarks which was rejected vide letter dated 24.11.1995. It is also alleged that since Tarn Taran was part of District Amritsar and Sh. Amar Dutt was District & Sessions Judge there and because of his close association with Sh. Dhaliwal, petitioner was awarded these adverse remarks. It is further alleged that Justice K.P. Bhandari did not visit Tarn Taran court during the CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -3- year 1992-93 nor the petitioner was called by him and without making any inspection petitioner was awarded the adverse reports. It is stated that despite the above adverse reports petitioner was granted selection grade vide order dated 5.5.1997 passed by the High Court. This benefit was released w.e.f. 1.1.1989. It is also stated that the petitioner was deputed for various courses during the years 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1997 as detailed in para 9 of the writ petition. During the period 1992-93 petitioner was posted at Fatehgarh Sahib, Distt. Patiala. He was inspected by Justice R.S. Mongia and in the later year i.e. 1993-94 he was inspected by Justice H.S. Brar. Petitioner claims to have earned good reports during these years. It is further alleged that both the good reports were later downgraded to “B Satisfactory” by the High Court without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that batch mates of petitioner of 1997 batch were promoted as Additional Senior Sub Judges w.e.f. 14.6.1991, as Chief Judicial Magistrate w.e.f. 1.1.1993 and as Additional District & Sessions Judges w.e.f. 12.11.1996 but the petitioner was ignored for such promotions on the basis of the above adverse reports. His representation against non-promotion also came to be rejected. Vide order dated 27.7.1999 petitioner was prematurely retired in terms of Clause (a) of sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 by the Governor of the State on the recommendations of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in public interest. Petitioner's representation against his premature retirement also came to be rejected vide letter dated 30.11.1999. These orders are subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Petitioner has challenged his premature retirement on the CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -4- following grounds:- 1. The petitioner has rendered 23 years of judicial service and there has been no complaint or inquiry against him nor there has been any adverse report regarding his integrity. 2. The order of premature retirement is the outcome of personal malice and prejudice, which are attributed to Justice G.R. Majithia and Justice K.P. Bhandari, the then Judges of this Court. 3. His good reports recorded by Justice R.S. Mongia and Justice H.S. Brar have been downgraded without affording any opportunity of being heard. Relying upon instructions dated 20.9.1979 issued by the High Court, it is stated that, if, the last report is “B Plus” then the Judicial Officer cannot be prematurely retired. High Court in its detailed reply has stated that displeasure was awarded to the petitioner vide memo dated 21.12.1985 through District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Disclosing the reason for displeasure, it is mentioned that on 23.7.1984 petitioner had decided civil suit titled as Sardaradin Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and others against Smt. Shanti Devi and others, who filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under section 219 IPC. This complaint was dismissed by the petitioner on the same day after holding that it was not maintainable in absence of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C from the State Govt. The petitioner also made a reference to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against Smt. Shanti Devi, her family members and two Advocates vide letter dated 25.9.1984. Even though, Sh.R.K. Sharma, Advocate applied for the certified copy of the order passed by the petitioner CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -5- in complaint of Smt. Shanti Devi and others but the copy of the same was denied on the ground that the record had been sent to the High Court. Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate also filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC against the petitioner in the Court of C.J.M, Sangrur. Thereafter, the petitioner directly sent the application of Sh. R.K. Sharma for supply of copy of the order to the High Court. His explanation was called for not routing the same through the District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur and displeasure was conveyed to the petitioner under the orders of Justice R.N. Mittal, the then Inspecting Judge for the Sessions Division Sangrur. While the petitioner was posted at Ludhiana, a complaint dated 26.4.1990 was made by one Raj Rani against him for not caring the stay order and threatening the complainant with dire consequences. This complaint was ordered to be looked into by the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who reported that the general reputation of the petitioner among the litigant public and members of Bar was that of a haught, head strong and harsh officer. It was also reported that the petitioner is in the habit of leaving the station without permission even on the days he was the Duty Magistrate. On the basis of these reports the then Administrative Judge Justice G.R. Majithia made following observations:- “ My observations about this officer have been reflected in his A.C.Rs.” Another Inspecting Judge Justice J.S. Sekhon also remarked about the petitioner that his behaviour towards the litigants and the members of the Bar is arrogant. Thereafter, petitioner was issued a warning for his behaviour. Respondents have also disclosed the adverse inspection remarks secured by the petitioner for the year 1991-92. The then Inspecting Judge Justice G.R. Majithia who conducted the inspection of the petitioner CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -6- made following remarks:- 1. Knowledge of law Poor 2. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases and has he coped effectively with heavy work. Regarding disposal of cases, there is no complaint but most of these are are disposed of for extraneous reasons for which he enjoys notoriety. 5. Is he an efficient Judicial Officer. He has yet to prove so. 6. Has he maintained Judicial Reputation for honesty and impartiality. Reputation stinking. 9. Net result. C (below average). These remarks were conveyed to the petitioner vide memo dated 25.8.1992 through District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Petitioner requested for personal hearing vide his letter dated 31.8.1992, whereupon Hon'ble Administrative Judge recorded that his request will be considered on receipt of the representation, if, any. Petitioner made a representation dated 30.9.1992 against the adverse inspection remarks. This representation was, however, rejected on 7.5.1993 with the following remarks:- “Representation perused. The officer has already been heard on 13.1.1993. I find no ground to tinker with the remarks already recorded by me. The representation is, therefore, rejected.” Another representation made by the petitioner dated 16.7.1993 was also declined on 21.8.1993. In regard to the claim of the petitioner that Justice K.P. Bhandari had graded him “C Below Average” which was later upgraded as “B Satisfactory”, it is stated that petitioner was initially graded as “B Satisfactory” by Justice Bhandari and not “C Below Average” as claimed by the petitioner. It is further case of the respondents that the Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 17.11.1994 while considering the A.C.Rs of the petitioner for the period CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -7- 1992-93 graded him as “C Below Average”, which was approved by the Full Court of the High Court and conveyed to the petitioner vide memo dated 6.6.1995. Petitioner's representation against the recording of A.C.Rs by the Full Court was again examined by the Full Court in its meeting dated 16.11.1995 and rejected which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.11.1995. According to respondents for the period 1993-94 and 1994-95 petitioner was graded as “A Very Good” and “B Plus Good” gradings by the District & Sessions Judge, however, against the coloumn of integrity, following remarks were made:- Has he maintained for honesty and impartiality during the period under report? (Give reasons, for your answer if it is negative or doubtful?) There were complaints against him. His work and conduct was kept under surveillance by me petinently and the officer was warned from time to time to show his honesty and integrity. These remarks were also communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 23.9.1995. Petitioner made representations against the confidential reports for the year 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. All these representations were considered by the Full Court in its meeting held on 14.5.1996 and rejected. The decision of the Full Court was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.5.1996. Case of the petitioner was, thereafter, considered for his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years by the Full Court and it was decided not to retain him in service in public interest. Consequently, on the recommendations dated 31.5.1999 of the High Court, Punjab Govt. passed the impugned order retiring the petitioner in public interest with immediate effect. Respondents have disclosed all the A.C.Rs earned by the petitioner during his service spreading over a period of 22 years. He has CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -8- earned as many as nine “B Satisfactory”, one “C Below Average” and remaining “B Plus” remarks. Adverse inspection reports noticed herein above and duly communicated also reflect upon the integrity of the petitioner particularly for the year 1992-93, wherein his reputation is reported to be “stinking”. Petitioner had earned selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1989, though the order granting the selection grade was passed on 1.5.1997. Since in the year 1989 there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner, he was released the selection grade due to him. It has no impact upon subsequent conduct of the petitioner. However, subsequently when the petitioner earned adverse reports, he has been compulsorily retired taking into consideration his entire service record, utility in service and the adverse A.C.Rs particularly the “doubtful integrity”. In terms of the instructions dated 20.9.1979 (Annexure P-12) even one “doubtful integrity” report is sufficient for compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer. Even though, petitioner has made certain allegations of malafides against the then District & Sessions Judges and Hon'ble Judges of this Court, who awarded adverse reports, however, none of them has been impleaded as party in this petition. Thus, the allegations of malafides cannot be looked into. Similar question came to be considered by this Court in CWP No. 11414 of 2011 titled as Naurang Singh Mundra Vs. The State of Punjab & others. A Division Bench of this Court on consideration of various judgements and analysis thereof, observed as under:- “In case of Pyare Mohan Lal V. State of Jharkhand and others reported as 2010 (10) SCC 693 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entire service record of the employee is required to be considered while assessing the question of his compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that whether adverse entries have been communicated to him and the CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -9- officer had been promoted earlier inspite of those adverse entries. In Chandra Singh and Nawal Singh's case (supra) it has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the Committee of Judges has assessed a Judicial Officer and decided to compulsorily retire him the power of judicial review has limited scope. The power of judicial review can only be exercised, if, there are serious allegations of malafide or violation of any rule, though, the employee can always contend that no opinion was formulated by the competent authority to compulsorily retire him. In the instant case, A.C.R. gradings earned by petitioner during his entire service are before us and the decision to retire the petitioner was taken by the High Court on whose recommendations the Governor had compulsorily retired the petitioner. Service record of the petitioner noticed herein above clearly indicates that he does fall in the category of dead wood and had earned eleven “B Satisfactory” reports out of which continuously five “B Satisfactory” reports are for five years preceding the passing of the order of compulsory retirement. Even though, the compulsory retirement is on subjective satisfaction but in the present case the instructions dated 20.9.1979 provide for objective consideration to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. The petitioner had more than 50% of his reports less than good. He also earned adverse report for the period 1990- 91. His overall service record do not reflect a very rosy picture. It is the opinion of the competent authority in the present case, the High Court to compulsory retire the petitioner. We do not find that the order passed by the competent authority is erroneous in any manner or suffers from any factual or legal infirmity in view of the dictum in Chandra Singh's case (supra). The nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer a judicial officer whose integrity is doubtful or has lost the utility for such a service. We find no reason to interfere in the order of compulsory retirement. This petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.” As noticed above the entire service record of the petitioner clearly indicates that he has lost utility in the Judicial Service as out of 22 reports he has nine “B Satisfactory” and one “C Below Average” reports. CWP No. 5286 of 2000 -10- His reputation is reported to be “stinking”, which is a clear reflection on his integrity. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgements this petition is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 22.11.2011. lucky Whether to be reported? Yes.