D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was appointed to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service (hereinafter called 'the Service') on probation for a period of two years with effect from 2nd May, 1983. However, this Court in a meeting of the Hon'ble Judges held on 21st March, 1985 decided that during the period of probation his work and conduct was not satisfactory and that his services deserved to be dispensed with forthwith. Consequently, vide letter dated 28th March, 1985 Annexure P.26, a recommendation was made to the Government of the State of Haryana for issuing necessary orders to this effect The (Petitioner challenged the decision/recommendation communicated to the Government vide letter Annexure P.26 by filling Writ Petition No. 11999 of 1985 in the Supreme Court of India
(2.) MR . Ram Nath Mahlawat Advocate, Rewari, district Mohindergarh (Haryana) filled C.W.P. No. 3542 of 1985, in this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or quo warranto directing the State of Haryana and this Court to remove the Petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul. The Petitioner, who was impleaded as Respondent No. 3 to the said petition, filed a transfer application No. 268 of 1985 in the Supreme Court praying for transfer of the same to its own file. Order Annexure P.1 was passed in both the cases by the Supreme Court on 14th April, 1986, the text of which is reproduced here below: Writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn in order that it may be filed in the High Court. Merely because the Full Court has decided to recommend the termination of service of the "Petitioner, it does not mean that the High Court will not examine the matter on merits on the judicial side. We hope and trust that the High Court and the State Government will not precipitate action against the Petitioner and the writ petition, if filed within 15 days from today, will be heard on merits on the judicial side alongwith writ petition pending before the High Court. It is for the High Court whether to give judicial work to the Petitioner or not during the pendency of his case. Transfer petition is rejected in view of the above. Signed order is placed on the file. In pursuance of the above order, the present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner in this Court. Besides this writ petition, we propose to dispose of C.W.P. No. 3542 of 1985 by this judgment as both these petitions were heard by us together. The Petitioner had been practising as an Advocate since 1968 when he was selected by this Court in a meeting held on 6th November, 1982 for appointment on probation to the Service as District/Additional District and Sessions Judge by way of direct recruitment from the Bar against one of the permanent posts allocated to the quota of direct recruits. On the recommendation made by this Court, he was appointed to the Service by the Government of the State of Haryana vide office order dated 14th April, 1983 Annexure P. 2 and was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, on 27th April, 1983 vide order of this Court Annexure P. 3. He assumed the charge of this post on 2nd May, 1983. He worked on the said post for about a year. Towards the end of April, 1984, he was transferred by this Court from Hissar to Narnaul as Additional District and Sessions Judge. He relinquished the charge of Hissar on 5th may, 1984 and assumed charge at Narnaul on 7th May, 1984. He continued working as such till 25th March, 1985, on which date judicial work was withdrawn from him in pursuance of the decision taken by this Court in its meeting held on 21st March, 1985, which was communicated to the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide order dated 22nd March, 1985.
(3.) DURING the period the Petitioner worked as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hissar and then at Narnaul, the following incidents took place to which specific reference has been made in the writ petition : (1) While posted at Hissar, on 26th September, 1983 when the Petitioner was recording evidence in a Sessions case, Shri Nar Singh Bishnoi, an Advocate of Hissar, came to this Court, interrupted the Court proceedings and submitted an unstamped application to the effect that Shri Thakar Dass, an Assistant Sub Inspector of the Haryana Police, whose statement was being recorded as a witness in the said Sessions case, should be directed to appear in a complaint case against the said officer in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar. He told the said Advocate that either the request for directing the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police to appear in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate should come from the said Court or the Advocate should bring summonses and get the Police Officer served when the latter leaves his Court after making the statement. According to the Petitioner, the Advocate did not return with the summonses for more than half an hour. He, therefore, discharged the said police officer after his testimony has been recorded. The Advocate came to his Court after the said police officer had left, and expressed his anger towards him and then went away saying that he would see that in future no judicial officer dare to act in such a manner. Shri Bishnoi Advocate moved a requisition Annexure P. 3/A for convening an urgent meeting of the Bar Association and a resolution Annexure P. 4 about the working of the Petitioner was passed by a few members of the Bar Association, Hissar, on 27th September, 1983. He himself reported this incident to this Court, - -vide his letter dated 8th October, 1983 Annexure P. 5 giving an account of the incident enclosing therewith copies of the Annexures P. 3/3 and P. 4. He sought advice of the High Court as to whether in the circumstances the police officer who was appearing as a witness in his Court could be directed by him to appear in another Court without there being a request or summonses from the Court concerned, and whether the witness could be detained on the request of the counsel for a party till he brought the summonses for appearance of the witness before the said Court. He also sought advice whether it was his duty as Additional District and Sessions Judge to get service of summonses effected on a person. The President of the Bar Association sent a copy of the resolution Annexure P. 4 to this Court as also to the District and Sessions Judge, Hissar. The Petitioner states that he did not receive any reply to his letter Annexure P. 5 and the complaint made against him had been filed by this Court as he was not found at fault. (2) While posted at Hissar as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 10th September, 1983, he had decided Sessions case 'State v. Ram Niwas' in which the accused was charged for offences under Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code. He acquitted the accused person of the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and released him on probation for a period of one year, - -vide his judgment dated 10th September, 1983 Annexure P. 6. Ram Niwas accused, who had been convicted, filed Criminal Appeal No. 521 -SB of 1983 in this Court which was decided by A.S. Bains, J. on 5th April, 1984. The appeal was accepted and the accused person was acquitted on the learned Judge reaching at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. A.S. Bains, J., however, made the following adverse remarks against the Petitioner in the last paragraph of his judgment (Annexure P. 7) in the said appeal: I am constrained to remark that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is extremely poor and is not baaed on the evidence on the record. The trial Court seems to have wrongly convicted the Appellant. The State of Haryana has filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2072 of 1974 in the Supreme Court of India against the judgment Annexure P. 7, which is still pending. The aforesaid remarks adverse to the Petitioner were conveyed to him by this Court, - -vide letter dated 25th April, 1984 which was received by him on 27th April, 1984. He requested this Court for supply of a copy of the aforesaid judgment to enable him to make a representation against the adverse remarks. Certified copy thereof was supplied to him in July, 1984 and he submitted his representation Annexure P. 8 to this Court on 30th August, 1984 for expunction of the aforesaid adverse remarks. He did not receive any communication from the High Court about the fate of his representation. He however, learnt from the reply filed by the High Court to his petition in the Supreme Court that no action on his aforesaid representation could be taken on the administration side. He submitted another representation dated January 21, 1986 Annexure P. 8/A for placing the matter on the judicial side before an appropriate Bench, but this was not done. He then filed a petition in this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for expunction of the aforesaid adverse remarks. (3) While posted at Narnaul, the Petitioner dealt with a Sessions case "State" v. Devla and Ors.' in July 1984, which had been registered on a complaint made by Mr. Ram Nath Mehlawat, an Advocate of Rewari, under Sections 332, 333, 353, 186 and 323, Indian Penal Code. According to the Petitioner, Mr. Mehlawat publishes a Weekly Newspaper named 'Jan Hirday' and has also formed a social organisation called 'Janta Kalyan Samiti'. He claims himself to be a public servant being Project Officer of the said Janta Kalyan Samiti. After recording evidence in the said Sessions case, arguments were heard by him on 20th July, 1984 and the case was fixed for announcement of the orders for 25th July, 1984. He pronounced the order Annexure P. 12 of conviction of all the accused persons except one Ranjit Singh accused under Sections 325/324/34, Indian Penal Code. He held that Mr. Mehlawat was not a public servant and the injuries caused to him were not to restrain him from performing public duty, even if he was a public servant. He, thus, concluded that offences under Sections 232/353, I.P.C. were not made out. He directed prosecution of Ranjit accused and one prosecution witness for fabricating false evidence. As he was proceeding on station leave, he adjourned the case to 30th July, 1984 for evidence and arguments on the question of sentence. On 30th July, 1984, on the request of the Learned Counsel for the accused, the case was adjourned to 10th August, 1984 as no earlier date was suitable to the counsel for the parties in spite of the fact that he wanted to adjourn the case to 4th August, 1984 or 9th August, 1984. He heard the arguments on the question of sentence on 10th August, 1984, and pronounced the judgment on 13th August, 1984, Annexure P. 12/A, as August 11 and 12, 1984, were holidays. All the accused were first offender and one of them was 60 years of age and one grievous injury by a fist blow had been inflicted by them on Mr. Mehlawat, the complainant, resulting in fracture of his nasal bone. The Petitioner ordered release of all the accused persons on probation for good conduct for a period of one and a half years. Out of this period, they were to remain under the supervision of the Probation officer for one year. The Petitioner alleges that Mr. Mehlawat got annoyed with him over the finding recorded by him in his aforesaid judgment and engaged himself in making false complaints against him. A complaint dated 11th September, 1984 Annexure P.13 was sent by Mr. Mahlawat to the chief justice of India with a copy thereof endorsed to chief Justice of this Court and other Judges, as also the Registrar, in which he made an allegation that the Petitioner had received Rs. 25000/ - from the accused persons for taking a lenient view against them and had adjourned the case after 25th July, 1984 to various dates and the said amount had been paid to him in instalments. He further alleged in the complaint that he had not got the certified copy of the judgment of the Petitioner till the date of the complaint, though he had applied for the same on 14th August, 1984. Mr. Mehlawat made another complaint dated 1st October, 1984 against the Petitioner to this Court pertaining to the aforesaid case. (4) Anonymous complaint dated 1st October, Annexure P -17 was received in this Court pertaining to Civil Appeal (Sher Singh and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh) pending with the Petitioner as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul This complaint contained, inter -alia, an allegation to the effect that the said appeal had been filed by Shri S.K. Sanghi Advocate but he was replaced with the connivance of the Petitioner, and at his behest, Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain, Advocate of Rohtak, who, according to the complainant, is known as mediator for passing extra consideration to some judicial officers was engaged. According to him, this complaint was apparently engineered by Hr. Mehlawat Advocate in collusion with Mr. M.B. Sanghi, an Advocate of Narnaul, who was representing the Appellants in that civil appeal. The Petitioner alleges that Mr. M.B. Sanghi Advocate is in the habit of overawing the Presiding Officers by creating scenes in the Courts and by sending frivolous complaints against them. He goes to any extent in his attempt to get his cases decided in his favour. The said civil appeal has been pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul, since 1977 and Mr. Mahabir Parshad Jain Advocate of Rohtak had been engaged by the Appellants as their counsel. Adjournments were being sought in the appeal by Shri S.K. Sanghi Advocate, the local counsel for the Appellants, from the predecessor of the Petitioner, on the ground that Mr. Mahabir Parshad Jain, Advocate of Rohtak, had to argue the appeal. A synopsis of the proceedings in the said appeal, so as to bring out this fact, has been appended with the petition as Annexure P. 18. He had taken over at Narnaul on 7th May, 1984 and had dealt with the aforesaid Civil Appeal only from 24th May, 1984 to 11th October, 1984. He heard arguments in the appeal on 7th May, 1984 and 8th September, 1984 and had adjourned the case to 15th September, 1984 as it was reported to him that there was a move for compromise between the parties. Since, however, no compromise was reported on 15th September, 1984 he fixed the case for rehearing of arguments for 28th September, 1984. On that date of request was made, on behalf of the counsel for the Appellants on the basis of which the case was adjourned to 16th October, 1984. The Petitioner contends that the allegation in the annonymous complaint that Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain Advocate replaced the local counsel for the Appellants in connivance with him is belied by the synopsis of the proceedings Annexure P.18. (5) Another complaint dated 11th October, 1984. Annexure P.19 from Shri M.B. Sanghi Advocate, Narnaul, was received by this Court which pertains to, a Civil Appeal entitled H.U.F. Mohan Lal v. Honda Ram. Arguments in this appeal, according to the Petitioner, were heard on 20th September, 1984. This was an appeal arising form a decree of the trial Court wherein as against the Plaintiff's claim of Rs. 2500/ - a decree for about Rs. 300/ - had been passed. An appeal was filed by the Plaintiff as he was dissatisfied with the decree. After hearing the arguments, he adjourned the appeal to 22nd September, 1984 for pronouncement of the judgment. On that date, however, the parties expressed their desire to reach at a compromise. As such the pronouncement of the judgment was postponed for about a fortnight. However, neither party reported about the compromise and he pronounced the judgment on 10th October, 1984 partly allowing the appeal and a decree in favour of the Plaintiff -Appellant was passed for Rs. 1768.18 paise with future, interest at the agreed rate. The only grievance made in the complaint by Shri Sanghi was that the Petitioner had not announced the judgment on 22nd September, 1984 and that it had been announced later on. The appeal had been allowed with costs and further interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum which, according to the complainant, was an examplary rate of interest. This Court called for comments of the Petitioner on this complaint vide letter dated 14th December, 1984 Annexure P.20 addressed by the Registrar of this Court to the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul. He was required to State the law or the rule under which he reserved the judgment in the aforesaid appeal on the ground that the parties had shown their willingness for a compromise. This Court also sent for the file of this appeal before calling for the comments of the Petitioner on the complaint. He submitted; his comments vide letter dated 2nd February, 1985 Annexure P.20/A, wherein he explained that he had bona fide belief that the provisions of Order 20, Code of Civil Procedure, enabled a Court to reserve judgment in an appropriate case and he accordingly reserved the judgment in the aforesaid appeal as the parties had expressed their desire on 22nd September, 1984 to reach at a compromise and had sought two weeks' time to inform the Petitioner about the compromise. Since they failed to do so, he pronounced the judgment on October 10, 1984. (6) Yet another complaint dated 14th January, 1985 Annexure P.21 was made by one Khem Chand against the Petitioner with regard to a rent appeal entitled Khem Chand v. Murti Mandir Jagan Nath. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment of Khem Chand as tenant on an application for the purpose filed by the Murti, Mandir Jagan Nath. The appeal filed by Khem Chand against his eviction order was dismissed by the Petitioner, - -vide order dated 24th November, 1984 and he gave three months' time to the Appellant to vacate the premises. According to him, the complainant wrongly stated in his complaint that he had been granted two months' time to vacate the premises, that limitation to file revision petition in this Court from his order was going to expire and that he had not been supplied copy of the order whereby the Petitioner dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner explained that the copying Agency is under the control of the District and Sessions Judge and that Shri Khem Chand had not made any complaint to the District and Sessions Judge for the delay in the supply of certified copy of the order. The complainant is a resident of Rewari. This complaint, according to the Petitioner, also appeared to have been engineered by Mr. Ram Nath Mehlawat Advocate who also resides at Rewari and was interested in multiplying the complaints against the Petitioner to prejudice the mind of the High Court against him.;