SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, in these writ petitions seeks to quash and expunge the adverse remarks made in his ACRs for the year 1995, 1996 and 1997. Prayer has also been made to set aside the orders of the High Court whereby the representations of the petitioner against the adverse remarks were rejected.
(2.) THE adverse remarks that were conveyed to the petitioner were as under:- For the year 1995 : " Many complaints against his behaviour at the time of inspection by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. Reports about integrity were also made, however they could not be substantiated. Over all the officer can be rated below average. Members of bar boycotted his court for a long time. " For the year 1996 : " Integrity not beyond doubt. He is not fair and impartial in dealing with the public and bar. He is hasty in action and short tempered person and do not maintain judicial restraint. He mixes with litigants and advocates appearing before him and utilises their services about vehicles etc. capacity to files systematically-zero. Whether judgments on facts and law are on the whole, sound, well reasoned and expressed in good Language- No. Control over the office and administrative capacity and tact- zero. THEre is lot of noises and hot arguments in his court which shows lack of control. Below average. Integrity certificate withheld (May 1996 to 15. 10. 1996 ). He is below average officer. " For the year 1997 : " He is below average officer. " In regard to the adverse remarks for the year 1995, petitioner averred that percentage of judicial work done by him in that year was 210% in first quarter, 110% in second quarter, 125% in third quarter and 135% in fourth quarter. The High Court even on judicial side appreciated one judgment delivered by the petitioner. During the petitioner's tenure, at Baran the members of Bar never boycotted his court. No complaint was ever made against the petitioner by the Bar Association as no memorandum was ever issued to the petitioner asking his explanation about any complaint. Thus the adverse remarks entered by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge were factually incorrect and wholly unwarranted and the order of High Court rejecting the representation of the petitioner was not based on reasons. For the year 1996 the petitioner pleaded that in that year he was posted at two places i. e. as Additional District and Sessions Judge Baran and as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The petitioner resumed his duties at Pratapgarh on May 6, 1996 and remained there upto October 15, 1996. Shri Bahadur Singh Chandrawat, the District Judge Pratapgarh had several personal grudges against the petitioner, a request was made by the petitioner to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for not allowing Shri Chandrawat to make entries in the ACR of the petitioner but the request was turned down and Shri Chandrawat was allowed to make entries in the ACR which obviously had to be `adverse'. The petitioner submitted detailed representation against the adverse entries so made pointing out instances due to which it could be inferred that ACR had been deliberately spoiled. The petitioner also pointed out fallacy in the remark regarding his judgment and placed on record the letter dated July 15, 1996 of the High Court appreciating his judgment. The petitioner pointed out that his quota of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarter was 138%, 180%, 175% and 170% respectively. The representation so submitted was rejected by the High Court without assigning reasons. For the adverse remarks of 1997 the petitioner pleaded that during the entire period of 1997 he had not been given any memorandum by his immediate senior. Between January 1, 1997 to June 30, 1997 the petitioner disposed 44 special sessions cases, 26 sessions cases and 11 appellate criminal cases, 22 criminal revisions and 63 misc. cases, and total disposal of first quarter came to 188. 46% and of second quarter was 153. 33%. For the period July 14, 1997 to December 13, 1997 his disposal for third and fourth quarter was 131% and 172% respectively. No audit objection was made during the period 1997 against him. The adverse entry in the year 1997 was made merely because of adversity in the ACR of 1996. Assessment of petitioner's work was not made in accordance with the circular dated June 22, 1995 issued by the High Court. Had it been so, the petitioner would have been placed in `very good' category. The petitioner submitted representation but it was rejected without showing any reason. On behalf of respondent High Court written statements to the writ petitions have been filed seeking to traverse the petitioner's case.
(3.) SUM and substance of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adverse remarks recorded in the service records of the petitioner suffers from the vice of malafides and reasons for rejecting the representations made by the petitioner against the said adverse remarks do not exist on records, therefore adverse remarks deserve to be expunged. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent High Court canvassed that while exercising the power of judicial review merit or grading of an officer cannot be assessed and appraised. It was further contended that decisions on representations of the petitioner which are based on reasons can not be rendered illegal on account of absence of reasons. We have pondered over the submissions and scanned the service records of the petitioner and other material placed for our perusal. Before proceeding further we find it necessary to consider the case law on the subject. ;