- (1.) The instant appeal filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the order of his compulsory retirement dated 08.08.2002, on the recommendation of respondent No. 1-High Court. The subject matter of challenge has also been the order dated 12.10.2007 dismissing the review application filed by the appellant. Brief facts of the case are necessary to be noticed first so as to put the controversy in its proper perspective. The appellant was appointed to the Judicial Service on 11.05.1981. He was promoted as Additional Senior Sub Judge in December 1989 and then as Chief Judicial Magistrate in June, 1993. Eventually, he was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge and joined as such on 02.02.1998, at Faridabad. He has claimed that till 06.09.2000, no adverse entry was ever conveyed to him throughout his service career which remained without blemish. However, on 16.05.2000, the High Court in exercise of disciplinary power under Rule 4-A of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, (for brevity 'the 1987 Rules') read with Article 235 of the Constitution placed him under suspension (P-1), in contemplation of disciplinary action for imposition of major penalty. However, for the year 1999-2000, the remarks of the Inspecting Judge were communicated to him stating that his integrity was doubtful. The remarks also indicated that his reputation was stinking, and the members of the Bar and Judicial Officers were generally of the view that the appellant was corrupt. The appellant has claimed that adverse remarks regarding his integrity were made without holding any regular departmental enquiry. Those remarks were subjective in nature and founded on hearsay. In support of his claim, the appellant has placed reliance on a resolution dated 22.05.2000 passed by the District Bar Association, Faridabad, which discloses that during his tenure as Sub Judge at Palwal and as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Faridabad, there was not a single instance of misuse of chair by him and the District Bar Association had sent an appeal to respondent No. 1-High Court to reinstate him in service pending departmental enquiry (P-2). The appellant has also placed reliance on press reports. The adverse remarks recorded by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge were communicated to the appellant on 02.09.2000 through the Registrar of the High Court (P-3). For expunging of the adverse remarks doubting his integrity, the appellant made a representation on 25.09.2000 (P-5), which was rejected by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge (P-6). Even the second representation made on 04.12.2000 (P-7) was again rejected by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge on 05.07.2001 (P-8). On 14.05.2001, the appellant represented to respondent No. 1 -High Court for revocation of his suspension, which was followed by two reminders dated 03.12.2001 and 02.04.2002 (P-9) (Colly.). Eventually, the appellant filed CWP No. 7009 of 2002 with a prayer for quashing of his order of suspension. His writ petition was disposed of on 06.05.2002 by a Division Bench of this Court and the respondents were directed to pass appropriate speaking order on the legal notice sent by the appellant (P-10). The order passed by the Division Bench on the aforesaid observation reads as under: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the legal notice served by the petitioner dated 2.4.2002, copy whereof is annexed to the petition as Annexure P/6, has not been responded to by the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate speaking order on the afore-referred legal notice within a period of four months from the date, a certified copy of this order is brought to their notice. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 6.5.2002 Sd - Swatanter Kumar Judge Sd/- Mehtab S. Gill Judge
(2.) On 24.07.2002, the suspension order passed against the appellant was revoked and he was reinstated in service (P-11). Accordingly, he submitted his joining report on 30.07.2002 and also re-joined the duty as Additional District and Sessions Judge (P-12). The appellant claimed that reinstatement after revocation of his suspension, which lasted about 2 years led to a presumption and belief that there was nothing adverse against him which could justify any disciplinary proceeding at the instance of respondent No. 1-High Court. However, on 3.07.2002, the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, intimated him that vide memo dated 25.07.2002, the High Court has recorded his ACR for the year 1999-2000, as integrity doubtful (P-13). The appellant has claimed that the report recorded in the year 2002, was not recorded in normal course at the end of the year 1999-2000 but after the close of the year 2001-2002. Therefore, it constituted a colourable exercise of power to achieve a collateral purpose.
(3.) The appellant then filed CWP No. 12082 of 2002 with a prayer for quashing the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 1999-2000, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. The appellant has alleged that despite his reinstatement on 24.07.2002 and assumption of charge on 30.07.2002, he was not assigned any staff and work. He had addressed communication to the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, for the assignment of the work and staff (P-15). Eventually, he was compulsorily retired vide order dated 08.08.2002, communicated by respondent No. 2-State of Haryana (P-16). The order specifically mentions that the appellant was being retired from service in public interest under Clause (d) of Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Vol-I. Part-I, as applicable to State of Haryana. The appellant filed a representation against order dated 08.08.2002, conveying adverse remarks doubting his integrity (P-17).;