- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Undaunted by the failure to get expunged an adverse entry recorded in his character roll in the year 1994-95, the representation against which entry was rejected by the Ad ministrative Committee of this Court vide its resolution dated 15-12-1995, which order stood affirmed with the rejection of the memorial submitted by him by the same committee, the petitioner who is an Additional District Judge has now ap proached this Court on its judicial side seeking the quashing of the orders passed by the Administrative Committee reject ing his representation and the memorial and further the quashing of the adverse entry referred to hereinabove.
(2.) IN the order dated 9-4-1996 of this Court, the respondents were required to file a counter-affidavit within three weeks and were further required to produce the entire report of the Hon'ble INspecting Judge. IN spite of the opportunity af forded, no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, when this case was taken up for hearing on 15-5-1996, the learned Stand ing Counsel representing the respondents produce the entire record relating to the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders. The entire record relating to the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders having been produced before us, the same was examined scrupulously. Since the relevant record has been produced and ex amined, no justification was found for grant ing any further time for filing the counter-affidavit which was sought for by the learned Standing Counsel. We have heard Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have perused that record. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The Dis trict Judge, Mirzapur who is the Reporting Officer had submitted his annual con fidential remarks in regard to the integrity, performance and conduct of Sri S. P. Lal, the Additional District Judge for the year 1994-95, indicating that he appeared to be a fair and impartial, cool-minded person who did not loose temper in Court and his private character was good. So far as the judgments delivered by the said officer were concerned, the Reporting Officer in dicated in his report that they were satis factory. The Reporting Officer on an over all assessment of the merit of the Officer, rated him as 'fair'. The reporting officer had further commented in his annual con fidential remarks that no verifiable com plaint had been received against the in tegrity of Sri S. P. Lal.
(3.) SRI S. P. Lal, the IInd Additional District Judge was authorised to deal with the cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The District Judge, Mirzapur the reporting officer vide his D. O. letter No. ST-12/95 dated 12-5-1995 had informed the Registrar of the Court that SRI S. P. Lal had carved out a new procedure for dealing with the bail ap plications in the cases where the bails had been rejected by the Magistrate and was entertaining such bail applications direct ly without their being presented in the Court of Sessions. The District Judge also made certain observations indicating cer tain procedural lapses on the part of the SRI S. P. Lal which according to the District Judge should have been avoided taking into account the old practice. The District Judge had further indicated his doubt about the fair work of the officer. It maybe noticed that the aforesaid letter had been sent by the District Judge, the Reporting Officer subsequent to the submission of his annual recommendatory remarks for the year 1994-95 to which a reference has been made above. The Dis trict Judge has pointed out that the facts mentioned in his report submitted by him in regard to the disposal of the bail ap plications, transfer of cases and the altered procedure being adopted by Sri Lal ignor ing the old practice were brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge who appears to have sought for an ex planation from Sri Lal which was to be submitted by 12th July, 1995. It appears from the record that Sri Lal did not submit any explanation by the date fixed and fur ther, as noticed by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, Sri Lal did not have even the cour tesy of discussing the matter with the Ses sions Judge. Observing so in his note dated 6-9-1995 after taking into consideration certain decisions rendered by Sri Lal in the matter relating to the award of compensa tion in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act wherein according to the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, the compensa tion had been disproportionately awarded to the claimants and further taking into con sideration certain directions issued by Sri S. P. Lal in the proceedings for the grant of bail, the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge recorded an opinion that the judicial work of the Office concerned showed that he had no legal acumen and was incoherent and in discrete and his integrity was doubtful.;