D.P.WADHWA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) DELAY condoned in S.L.P. (C) No. 1830 of 1999. High court of Punjab and Haryana is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 22/05/1998 of a division bench of its own High court on judicial side setting aside the order of the State of Haryana, Respondent No.2, pre-maturely retiring the first respondent Ishwar Chand Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'Jain'), a member of the superior judicial service of the State of Haryana on the recommendation of the High court. Jain, a practising advocate of 14 years standing, joined the superior judicial service of the State of Haryana after his selection by the High court. He joined service on 2/05/1983 and under Rule 10 of the relevant Rules put on probation for a period of two years. He was posted at Hissar as Additional District and Sessions Judge. In the year 1983-84 inspection of his court was made by the inspecting judge of the High court, who graded his work as "B-satisfactory". Full court of the High court reduced this grading to "B- average/satisfactory". For the subsequent 269 year 1984-85 Jain was posted at Narnaul. The inspecting judge graded him "B+(Good)". Full court of the High court, however, graded it to C-Below Average". While the inspecting judge considered "knowledge of law and procedure" of the officer as "good", High court recorded it as "poor". Against the column If the Officers was industrious and prompt in disposal of the cases and has he coped effectively with heavy work' inspecting judge gave him the remarks as "yes", High court said it is "No". Against the column 'whether the judgments and orders were well written and clearly expressed", the inspecting judge said "Yes +B (Good)". There is no such column in the form of recording ACR by the High court. Inspecting judge said officer was an efficient judicial officer and had maintained the judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality. According to High court there was "scope for improvement". About his attitude towards members of the Bar and the public the inspecting judge recorded that "some members of the Bar were complaining about his unaccommodating nature". High court used this entry to say "scope for improvement"
(3.) IN the Full court meeting of the High court held on 21/03/1985 the High court resolved that the work and conduct of Jain was not satisfactory and that his services deserved to be dispensed with forthwith. It made recommendation to the State government for issuing necessary orders in this respect. Extract of the proceedings of Full court meeting of the High court held on 21/03/1985 is as under :- "The matter regarding Shri 1.C. Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, was considered. in view of the fact that his period of probation of two years is going to expire on 2/05/1985, his performance as Additional District and Sessions Judge was reviewed. It was decided on further consideration that during this period, his work and conduct was not satisfactory and his services deserve to be dispensed with forthwith. Consequently, a recommendation be made to the State government for issuing necessary orders in this respect." Jain challenged the recommendation of the High court terminating his probation by filing a writ petition in the High court (CWP No. 2213 of 1986. A division bench of the High court by its judgment dated 9/12/1986 dismissed the same. The division bench also observed that the governor had since accepted the recommendation of the High court dispensing with the services of Jain in terms of Rule 10(3 of the Rules. Then it directed that formal order in that regard shall be issued by the State government without further delay. Against that Jain came to this court seeking leave to appeal. This court granted him leave and by judgment dated 26/05/1988 set aside the judgment of the High court. This court held that the modification of the ACR by the Full court for the year 1984-85 from "B+Good" to "C-Below Average" was based on no material and unsustainable in law. The result was that Jain was put back in service. He joined his duty on 9/06/1988. He was, however, not granted consequential benefits on his reinstatement and he approached this court again by filing an Interlocutory Application, which was allowed by order dated 11/09/1988 and the original seniority of Jain was restored by the High court. 270;