PANKAJ MITHAL,J. - (1.) The petitioner Anupati Ram Yadav, after serving Indian Air Force for 15 years from 10.08.76 till 31.08.1991 was appointed on 19.03.1996 on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division in the State of U.P. on the basis of selection in the competitive examination. In the year 2007-08 when he was posted as C.J.M. Ambedakar Nagar, the District Judge recorded certain adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report. The petitioner's representation dated 09.07.08/14.07.2008 against the said adverse remarks was rejected as communicated to him vide letter dated 24.03.2009 by the High Court. In the same year his integrity was withheld by the Administrative Judge and his judgements were held to be very poor. Accordingly, he was assessed as a poor officer. The petitioner represented on 06.03.2009 for expunging the above remarks of the Administrative Judge but the representation was rejected vide order dated 17.01.2013 by the High Court as communicated to him. On the basis of his past service record specially the above entries, the High Court recommended for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and the Chief Secretary State of U.P. by the office order dated 01.03.2013 directed for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner in the above circumstances has preferred this writ petition challenging not only the order of compulsory retirement but also the rejection of his representation against the adverse entry given by the Administrative Judge for the year 2007-08 and has prayed that he may be allowed to discharge his duties as Additional District and Sessions Judge the post which he was holding at the time of compulsory retirement and to pay him salary and all arrears accordingly. The parties having exchanged pleadings agreed for the final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission. Sri Anupati Ram Yadav, who appeared in person, submitted that the then District Judge and the Administrative Judge were annoyed with him and as such they have awarded adverse entry so as to ruin his career. The Administrative Judge was not competent to withhold his integrity for the relevant year as the District Judge had certified it. The withholding of the integrity by the Administrative Judge amounts to down grading his entry which could not have been done without following the principles of natural justice. The term of the then Administrative Judge had expired on 31.03.2008 and as such he could have awarded entry to him within six months thereof i.e. by the end of September, 2008 whereas his integrity was withheld vide order dated 03.02.2009 which was illegal. The adverse entry for the year 2007-08 was on the basis of the inspection report of 05.07.2008 which could have been relevant only for the year 2008-09.
(3.) The petitioner had represented against the aforesaid withholding of integrity immediately on 06.03.2009 by filing a representation and the same was decided after about four years though under the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Report and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995, such a representation ought to have been decided within four months or 120 days. Lastly, he submits that his entire service record which was otherwise unblemished was not taken into consideration before retiring him compulsorily. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Allahabad High Court in response to the above arguments submitted that in view of Article 235 and Rule 4 of Chapter III of the High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to the High Court Rules) the Administrative Judge has independent power to record entries in the character roles of the officers of the subordinate judiciary. Thus, there is no question of down grading of the entry of the petitioner and to follow the principles of natural justice in that regard. The award of entry by the Administrative Judge after the expiry of his term though a little late would not invalidate the entry so awarded. The representation of the petitioner against the said adverse entry was dealt with in all promptness and the reasons for the delay have been suitably explained and as such there is no willful or deliberate delay in deciding the same. Moreover, the representation stood decided prior to the decision taken for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The entire past service record of the petitioner was duly considered and in the light of the entries recorded for the year 2007-08 and 2011-12, a conscious decision to retire him compulsorily was taken. There is no arbitrariness or malafidely in taking the said decision. It is thus beyond the judicial review. In order to deal with the aforesaid submissions advanced by the parties it would be appropriate to highlight some additional basic facts leading to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner joined as Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division on 19.03.1996. He was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 15.12.2008. He was compulsorily retired vide order dated 01.03.2013. The aforesaid order of compulsory retirement is said to have been passed on the basis of the entry awarded to him for the year 2007-08 by the District Judge and the Administrative Judge as well as in view of the entry for the year 2010-11. The annual confidential remarks recorded by the District Judge for the said year when the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedakar Nagar reveals that according to him the integrity of the petitioner was beyond doubt. His disposal of cases was reported to be poor with the remark that he needs improvement in disposal of old cases and cases under Section 258 Cr.P.C. In over all assessment the petitioner was assessed as a good officer by him. ;