O.P.Jain, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is a Judicial Officer, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing orders Annexure 6 and Annexure 7 dated 14th February, 1997 and 7th February 1997 respectively by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 23rd April, 1997.
(2.) The facts, insofar as they are relevant, are that the petitioner was appointed Munsif after competing successfully in P.C.S.(J) Examination in the month of February, 1978. In due course he was appointed Civil Judge in the month of June 1987 and was posted as Addl. District Judge in the month of August 1996. During this period he received some adverse entries from time to time which related mainly to deficiency in the disposal of cases. Such remarks were given for the year 1984-85 and 1986-87. However, the representation of the petitioner was allowed by the Administrative Committee on 18th December, 1991 and his explanation for low disposal was considered sufficient. In the subsequent years, i.e. for the year 1987-88 and 1993-94 also there were some adverse entries.
(3.) The entry which is comparatively more damaging to the petitioner was given in the year 1994-95 by the District Judge and it is Annexure-2 to the petition. The petitioner filed a representation Annexure-3 but it was rejected by the High Court, vide Annexure-5. The adverse entry for the year 1994-95 which was communicated to the petitioner by the High Court is Annexure-4 and reads as under : "Disposal 114.75%. The District Judge has reported that he did not pay much attention for disposal of execution cases and occasionally interim orders were not based on sufficient reasons. Further it has been informed that his judgments are not well-reasoned and require improvement and in quite a number of sessions trials he did not frame the charge before the commencement of the evidence and obtained the signatures or thumb impression of the accused on blank papers and got the charge typed out after the close of arguments. On overall assessment the District Judge has rated him as fair and a very slow....discontented officer. It has also been reported by the District Judge that some complaints regarding partial dealings were received but could not be substantiated and occasionally he loses temper in Court. Integrity certified.;