MAHESH GROVER,J. - (1.) The petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 24.8.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is flowing from an adverse confidential remark recorded by the Inspecting Judge for the year 1996 commenting on his Integrity against which the petitioner filed a representation on 28.10.1997 which was considered by the same Inspecting Judge and rejected. The remarks were accepted by the Hon'ble Full Court and it was recommended that the petitioner be retired prematurely from service. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.8.1998 against the adverse remarks and also against the decision of premature retirement. According to the petitioner, he was informed by the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 24.8.1998 about the adverse remarks against him which led to the filing of a representation dated 27.8.1998.
(2.) The dates are relevant for the petitioner as he pleads that the representation against the adverse remarks was still pending, but a decision to retire him prematurely was taken by the Hon'ble Full Court and this has prejudiced his case to attract the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others 2002(2) S.C.C. (L&S) 771 wherein it was observed as under :- "45. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." This briefly is the case of the petitioner and the learned counsel representing him with reference to the material on record has stated that the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner on 17.8.1998 vide Annexure P-9 against which he submitted a representation on 27.8.1998 and the decision to retire him prematurely was taken by the Hon'ble Full Court on 13.8.1998 and final decision taken by the Government on 24.8.1998 was endorsed to the petitioner on 1.9.1998. From the above, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is unsustainable as it has been passed on the basis of adverse comments which were never communicated to him thereby depriving him of the valuable right of making a representation and consideration before and order adverse to him was passed.
(3.) The respondents have filed a reply and have also produced before us the original record including the decision of the Hon'ble Full Court.;