PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against an adverse entry made for the year 1996 in the Annual Confidential Report (referred to hereinafter as `a. C. R. ') of the petitioner. A representation was filed by the petitioner against such adverse entry and the same has been rejected on the administrative side by the High Court. While the petitioner preferred the representation, he claims that he had requested for grant of an opportunity of personal hearing before the Committee of Hon'ble Judges constituted to consider the representation of the petitioner against the adverse entry communicated to the petitioner for the year 1996. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner as prayed for and the petitioner and the petitioner received a communication Annex. P. 4 from the Registrar General informing him that his representation has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner claims in the representation that the communication Annex. P. 4 did not disclose any reasons leading to the rejection of the representation of the petitioner. In this petition the petitioner has claimed that remarks recorded against the petitioner are not bona fide remarks by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has claimed that he has a feeling in retrospect that respondent No. 2 expected an exclusive and high degree of attention towards him and the petitioner could not confirm up to his subjectivity perceived expectations and that has resulted in recording of adverse entry against the petitioner. The petitioner has left a question mark in his representation wherein he claims that he wonders if there are other reasons also which may have annoyed respondent No. 2 and persuaded him to record adverse remarks against the petitioner. The petitioner in his representation has given detailed resume of the facts leading to the complaints against him and has joined the issue on the factual aspect of the recording of the adverse entry. He has claimed that the respondent No. 2 in his report of preliminary enquiry has chosen to formulate incorrect report. Such report has been prepared, with malice in mind. The petitioner claims that the Hon'ble High Court on the allegations did not consider it fit to initiate a departmental enquiry on such allegations. Dealing with the aspect of holding enquiry by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner claims that he took an unheard of steps of openly inviting complaints against the petitioner. It has also been claimed in the petition that such letters were dispatched to hardened criminals in jail and were also openly circulated in the court premises. This kind of open invitation for accusation, lowers done the dignity of the Judicial Officers in the mind of the public at large. This suggests deep malice in the mind of respondent No. 2 as these remarks are not only vague but also baseless and unfounded. It has caused great mental agony to the petitioner. The petitioner has justi- fied that the allegations of not taking pains in relation to the disposal of the old cases, are not based on correct appreciation of the factual matrix in this relation. If any old cases have remained pending then they were beyond the control of the petitioner. The allegation regarding capacity to handle files systematically and to control the proceedings in the court too is not found on correct appreciation of the working of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has claimed that the order of the Hon'ble High Court made on the administrative side vide Annex. A. 4 is ex facie illegal inasmuch as it is not a speaking order. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation have been even noted muchless considered and have been adjudicated upon and, therefore, the petitioner claims that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected without there being any reason or order on record and thus, the order Annex. P. 4 infringes the principles of natural justice. The petitioner for preparing his defence has requested for issuance of copies of certain documents. The same have not been issued to the petitioner. Such non-issuance has caused a serious prejudice to the petitioner. This has resulted into a situation where the petitioner has not been able to make submissions in regard to the material on the basis of which the ultimate decision has been taken against him to reject his detailed representation.
(3.) THE petitioner claims that the adverse entry against the petitioner is vague to the extreme. He also claims that before making the adverse entry at no stage the petitioner was apprised of the feelings of the reporting officer. Such expression of the feelings, prior to recording an adverse entry, is always useful. Purpose of bringing to the notice of the employee adversity going against him is to permit him one opportunity to correct himself. THE petitioner has further claimed that there had not been a single adverse entry made against him either prior to the impugned adverse entry or later to that. THE petitioner claims that it is almost impossible that a person who has been good and honest throughout will suddenly become so bad on all the counts as projected by the respondent No. 2. THE adverse entry can safely be called just an island in the entire career of the petitioner. THE petitioner has said that the adverse entry has been made by the reporting officer with the intention of spoiling the career of the petitioner and to see that the petitioner is not promoted to the next post for which his promotion was due since 1995. The respondents have joined the issue and the respondent No. 1 in its reply has claimed that the petitioner has not come up with correct narration of facts. He has been guilty of committing judicial indiscipline by giving probation in a case under Food Adulteration Act, which is impermissible. It has been claimed by the respondent No. 1 in its reply that it is wrong to say that no adverse entry was conveyed to the petitioner except the entry of 1996. The ACR of 1993 was adverse and communicated to the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the adverse entry of 1996 was an island in itself. It may however be mentioned that such adverse remarks were expunged after considering the representation of the petitioner filed in that relation. Such action shows that the representations against the adverse entries are considered with objectivity by the answering respondent. This has been claimed by the answering respondent that all the lapses were brought to the notice of the petitioner but he failed to come up to the expectation. This has been asserted on behalf of the answering respondent that granting of an opportunity of submission of representation is sufficient. No personal hearing is necessary when the case of an officer is considered against adverse entry. The representation was rejected after consideration. Such consideration was made after receiving the comments of the reporting officer and in the face of the representation of the petitioner. The Committee was headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The report of the Committee was unanimous. ;