- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for expunging adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter called the 'acr') of the petitioner for the years 1986-87 and 1992-93; for quashing the letter dated 10th August, 2005 issued by the High Court, rejecting his review representation dated 2- 4-2005 and also for the benefits of ACP Scale-I with effect from 1-1-1996.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was selected as a Member of U. P. Nyayik Sewa and was posted as Munsif Magistrate on 8-1-1980. Adverse entries had been recorded in his ACR for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. He filed two representations for expunging the same, however, they were rejected by the High Court vide order dated 19-3-1990 and the said order was communicated to him vide letter dated 17-4-1990. Petitioner filed two review representations, which were also rejected on 21-4-1991 and the order of rejection was communicated to him vide letter dated 26-4-1991. Again, he made second review representation on 2nd April, 2005 for quashing the said adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1986-87, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28-7-2005 and petitioner was accordingly informed. In the year 1986-87, enquiry had also been initiated against him wherein one of the charges, that he misbehaved using intemperate and offensive language with Shri S. M. L. Upadhyay and his brother-in- law Dr. V. N. Upadhyay at the residence of Shri B. D. Maurya, the then Additional District Judge, Etah on 27-2-1986 at about 20. 30 hours, found proved but the other charges that the petitioner approached another Judicial Officer in a bail matter was not found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. THE High Court on consideration of the enquiry report imposed the punishment of warning upon the petitioner. THE punishment was incorporated in his ACR and it was communicated to him by the High Court vide letter dated 2-12-1989. In 1992, again certain complaints were made against him. THE then District Judge, Jhansi submitted a report on which the enquiry was initiated. THE Inquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report, which was not accepted by the High Court. THE petitioner was served a show-cause notice alongwith the reasons for not agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on charge No. 2. Petitioner submitted reply to the same and after considering his representation, the Court resolved to drop the proceedings. However, some adverse remarks were made in his ACR for the year 1992-93. He made a representation for expunging the same. THE said representation has been rejected on his reminder representation, vide order dated 26-10-2005. It was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17-11- 2005. Hence the present petition. Shri Durga Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the adverse entries in respect of the year 1986-87 have become meaningless and are liable to be ignored in view of the fact that the petitioner had been promoted subsequent thereto as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter as Additional District Judge. The adverse entries for the year 1992- 93 are liable to be quashed for the reason that it had been made for extraneous consideration without considering the functioning of the petitioner objectively. Once the petitioner has been exonerated in the enquiry, there was no occasion for retaining the adverse entries for the aforesaid year 1992-93. More so, the impugned adverse entries have been recorded in an arbitrary manner on mala fides by the then District Judge, Jhansi and the petitioner had been deprived of the ACP Scale-I and has subsequently been compulsorily retired because of these adverse entries recorded in his ACRs. Petitioner had not been awarded any other adverse entry during his entire service career. While rejecting the representation, reasons have not been recorded by the High Court. Thus, the petition deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, Shri Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel appearing for the High Court has vehemently opposed the writ petition contending that the adverse entries recorded in the years 1985-86 and 1986- 87 were communicated to the petitioner and his representations and review representations had already been rejected vide orders dated 19-3-1990; 21-4-1991 and 2-4- 2005. All the orders had been communicated to the petitioner. There was no occasion for him to make 3rd representation in respect of the same and the petition cannot be entertained so far as the expunging the adverse entries for the year 1986-87 are concerned. So far as the adverse entries for the year 1992-93 are concerned, the same were independent of the enquiry and his exoneration in the enquiry would not make the adverse entries liable to be expunged automatically. There is a very limited scope of judicial review in such matters and unless the Court finds that the adverse entry has been made arbitrarily or because of mala fide, the ACRs filled up by an officer who has an opportunity to examine his conduct and watch his performance, does not require any interference. It has further been contended that while rejecting the representation, there was no occasion for the High Court to record reasons. Petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issues involved herein are no more res-integra. In K. P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1031 and in Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors. , AIR 1996 SC 3240, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the superior Courts should be reluctant to make any remark against a judicial officer. In such a situation, proper course would be to "make note of his conduct in the confidential record of his work and to use it on proper occasion. ";