B.K. Roy and R.K. Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is presently posted at Deoria, has come up with prayers to quash (i) the Adverse Entry dated 11.5.1994 awarded to him vide D.O. No. C-516/94. dated June 18. 1994, as contained in Annexure-5 : (ii) the Order dated 29.6.1994. which is part of Annexure-5 itself, and (iii) the Order dated 8.6.1995, as contained in Annexure-7. 1.1. The document appended as Annexure-5 shows that it is copy of the confidential communication being D.O. No. 62/ST/94 of the District Judge, Budaun to the petitioner along with D.O. No. C-516/94 of the Court containing the Adverse Entry dated 11.5.1994 of the Court which reads thus : "Deliberately avoided to attend the official meeting with Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on 23.10.1993, at the irrigation Inspection House, during his Lordship's visit to Mirzapur. He is guilty of disobedience. He is also impertinent and arrogant in his behaviour." 1.2. The document appended as Annexure-7 is copy of D.O. No. 46/ST/90 dated June 8. 1995 of the District Judge. Budaun intimating the petitioner that his Representation dated 4.7.1994 against the Adverse Remarks has been considered and rejected enclosing photostat copy of the Court's Confidential D.O. No. C-604/Cf(A)-995 dated, Allahabad, May 31. 1995, which, however, has not been filed by the petitioners.
(2.) The petitioner asserts, inter alia, that on 23.10.1993. he was posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur that 23.10.1993 was a holiday and he was on fast and performing Havan while celebrating Ram Navmi. a sacred festival of Hindus ; that on that day, i.e., 23.10.1993 the District Judge, Mirzapur (respondent No. 1) had deputed all Judicial Officers on duty at Irrigation Inspection House. Mirzapur to meet Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice to this Court who had gone to worship the Goddess Kali at Vindhyachal, which is part of Mirzapur, that he did not meet Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice ; that after Dussehra vacation respondent No. 1 enquired from him in regard to his absence at the Irrigation Inspection House. Mirzapur on 23.10.1993 vide his letter dated 25,10.1993 (copy appended as Annexure-2) to which he replied, explaining hts absence and apology through his letter dated 25.10.1993 (copy appended as Annexure-3) to respondent No. 1 ; that respondent No. 1 through his letter reported his absence along with copy of his letter dated 25.10.1993 to the Registrar of this Court (respondent No. 2) ; that respondent No. 2 placed the aforesaid letter before the Hon'bte Administrative Judge. Incharge of the Judgeship of Mirzapur, that on being asked by the Administrative Judge the petitioner met and apprised him about the whole facts concerning the incident : that (hereafter he received the D.O. letters as contained in Annexure-5 ; that he made representation against the Adverse Remarks on 4.7.1994 (copy appended as Annexure-6) ; that his representation was rejected by the Court vide order dated 8.6.1995, which was communicated to him on 13.6,1995 (copy appended as Annexure-7) ; that in fact the petitioner was not informed that any official meeting of his was fixed with Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, whose visit was not an official visit but a personal visit ; that the petitioner did not avoid with any oblique motive to attend the meeting ; that despite the fact that he was on fast and busy in his Pooja and 23.10.1993 being a holiday and, therefore, he could not be present at the Inspection House, yet it appears that respondent No. 1 in his report made certain comments against him with ulterior motive ; that he was not supplied copy of the report of the District Judge and was not given any opportunity to have his say in that regard ; that there was no material justifying adverse remarks about his disobedience, impertinence and arrogance ; that his representation was not considered fully ; that the order rejecting his representation does not contain any reason rather it has been dealt with arbitrarily ; that the adverse remarks and rejection of his representation are illegal and against express directions of the Court as contained in its Circulars as contained in Annexure-1. besides his Fundamental Rights to worship and religion guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution has been breached : that he filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of by order dated 13.10.1995 giving liberty to him to move this Court in the matter (copy appended as Annexure-8) and hence this writ petition.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit, a copy of which was served on the petitioner on 21,9.1998, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, sworn by Sri. T. M. Khan. O.S.D. (Litigation), it has been stated, inter alia, that he has been authorised to file it ; that he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to : that in regard to the incident in question the District Judge, Mirzapur sent his report dated 23.10.1993 in regard to the absence of the petitioner from official meeting of the officers of Mirzapur Judgeship with Hon'ble Chief Justice on 23.10.1993 to the effect that the petitioner was absent without any information to him from the official meeting of the judicial officers of his judgeship with Hon'ble the Chief Justice fixed at Irrigation Inspection House, Mirzapur ; that when asked to explain reasons for his absence the petitioner submitted his explanation through his letter dated 25.10.1993 that he had no knowledge about the meeting and that the visit of Hon'ble the Chief Justice was private ; that the plea of the petitioner that he had no knowledge of the said meeting was false and unacceptable : 'that the District Judge recorded his disapproval of the conduct of the petitioner as a Judicial Officer and reported the Court for taking appropriate action ; that during his meeting with Hon'ble Administrative Judge the latter tried to convince him that whenever a meeting is arranged of a Judicial Officer with any Judge or Chief Justice of this Court, it is required to be attended by the Judicial Officer, so far as is possible but the way in which he talked to the Administrative Judge showed arrogance and impertinence which is not expected from an officer of the rank of an Additional District Judge : that the Hon'ble Administrative Judge on 16.3.1994 proposed and directed that the following adverse entry be made in the Character Roll of the petitioner : "Deliberately avoided to attend the official meeting with Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on 23.10.1993, at the Irrigation Inspection House, during His Lordship's visit to Mirzapur. He is guilty of disobedience. He is also impertinent and arrogant in his behaviour" ; that the representation dated 4.7,1994, made against the adverse remarks of the Court dated 11.5.1994, was considered on 25.5.1994 in the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the Court and it was resolved to reject his representation after fair consideration and elaboration ; that for the year 1995-96 the Court has also given adverse remarks to the petitioner which reads thus : "His turnover during the year was 112.44% which is satisfactory. He did not take adequate interest in disposing of civil cases as his disposal of civil cases was only of about 7-1/2 days of his turnover during the entire year. He is rated as a fair officer. Nothing has come to my notice which may cast any reflection on his integrity which is certified"; that the aforesaid adverse remarks were communicated to him through Court's D.O. No. C-698/96, dated 27.8.1996 through District Judge. Mirzapur ; that no provision of the Constitution or any other law has been violated in taking action against the petitioner, which is strictly within the framework of the Constitution ; that none of the grounds raised call for any inference by this Court ; and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 3.1. In the counter-affidavit, following facts have also been stated : (a) For the year 1976-77 the Court gave the following adverse remark to the petitioner : "He is a junior officer and it is distressing to note that he lacks courtesy and good manners. He is not amenable to the advice of the District Judge. His disposal is very inadequate. There ts nothing to doubt his integrity." (b) For the year 1977-78 the Court gave the following adverse remarks : "His knowledge of law is poor and appreciation of evidence unsatisfactory. His judgments are not sound and are sometimes vitiated even by misreading of documents. He lacks thoroughness and does not care to acquaint himself fully with the pleadings of the parties. His disposal is below standard. His studied reluctance to call on the District Judge betrays lack of good manners in him. His insularity and isolation have deprived him of the wholesome opportunity of learning from contact with his senior officers. He should, have avoided occupying the house of a practising lawyer. There is, however, nothing to doubt his integrity." (c) The aforesaid remarks were communicated to him vide D.O. No. C-1865/78, dated 19.10.1978. (d) He made representation dated 6.11.1979 concerning the aforesaid remarks. (e) After consideration of his representation the remarks of 1976-77 were modified and substituted in these terms : "He is a junior officer and it is distressing to note that he lacks courtesy and good manners. He is not amenable to the advice of the District Judge. His disposal is very inadequate. Low disposal has, however, been sufficiently explained. There is nothing to doubt his integrity" ; and the remarks that "His disposal is below standard" for the year 1977-78 was substituted by the following : " His disposal is just standard" and his representation relating to other adverse remarks was rejected by the Court and he was informed accordingly, through the District Judge, Kheri. (f) For the year 1979-80 the District Judge, Kheri had recorded the following adverse remarks against him: "1(e) Control Inspite of repeated over the file in the Instructions, he does matter ofnot fix the cases properly in the cause list. He fixes a largewhich is humanly Impossible for any judicial officer to deal with the result that he has to grant adjournments unnecessarily. (i) proper fixation of cause list. (ii) Avoidance of unnecessary adjournments. 1 (f) Whether Judgment on facts and law are on the whole sound, well reasoned and expressedlanguage. 1 (k) Whether the officer has made regular Inspectionof his Court and the office in his charge during the year. and whether such inspections were full and effective. 1(m) Whether amendable to the advice of the District Judge and other superior officers. His Judgments needimprovement. Some of the judgments lacked discussion and an attempt was made to dispose of the case a very short point without making efforts to deal with the matter seriously. He has made regular Inspections of his Court and office. Inspite of repeated instructions on the inspection notes, he has not tried to improve the standard. No 3. Otherremarks, if any : He is an officer who does not mix with his brother officers. He keeps himself socially all of This could be appreciated vis-a--vis the Advocates and not be officers. After he came to this district. inspite of my repeated requests, he didofficer or officers of his status. Last year. I did not award an adverse remark and wrote a D.O. to him to Improve inthis matter, but as the report was he has not done so. In the last, I sent a D.O. to him asking for theearlier letter, but I am not satisfied with the compliance which he has made. As he does not mix with his brother officers, he has developed perversity in his manners and habits and that also affects his Judicial work. It may be pointed out that once, he had a common retiring room, he startedtaking food in hisown Court room. A.D.O. was sent tohim not to do so but he did not listen." (g) The petitioner represented against the aforementioned remarks through his representation dated 17.6.1980, which was duly considered and rejected and he was informed accordingly through Court's D.O. No. C-185/81, dated 5.2.1981 through District Judge, Kheri ; (h) For the year 1983-84, the following adverse remarks were recorded against, the petitioner : "Disposal above standard being 116%. District Judge says his judgments are on the whole well discussed and couched in satisfactory language. Relations with the Bar normal, but the same cannot be said as regards brother officers about whom the District Judge says that he has not maintained any relations with them and.,called neither on the brother officers nor even the District Judge. His inspections were, however, regular and effective. On an overall assessment the District Judge has rated him as a fair officer. Integrity is certified." (i) The aforesaid remarks were communicated to him through Court's D.O. No. C-516/85 dated 26.4.1985 through District Judge, Gorakhpur. The submissions :;