Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner joined the Rajasthan Judicial Services on 03.04.1988. He was posted as the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Badi, District Dholpur from the year 1991 till 1993. He was communicated adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACR') for the year 1993 vide letter dated 27.01.1996 (Annexure -2). His integrity certificate was also withheld for the period from 01.01.1993 to 15.06.1993. The petitioner submitted his representation against these adverse remarks on 25.03.1996. This representation was rejected by the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice vide letter dated 04.06.1999 (Annexure -6). The petitioner then filed a review petition on 24.07.1999 against rejection of his representation. The review petition was also dismissed by another Committee which had been constituted by the Chief Justice.
(2.) THROUGH the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the adverse remarks in the ACRs for the years 1993 & 1994, as well as quashing of the orders dated 04.06.1999 (Annexure -6) and 03.07.1999 (Annexure -11). He has also sought for a direction for consideration of his case for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted by ignoring the adverse entries in the ACRs. Adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1994 were communicated to him on 12.02.1997. The petitioner submitted his representation for expunction of these adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 1994. Vide order dated 03.07.1999, these adverse remarks relating to integrity for the year 1994 were expunged and the entry with regard to his disposal of work was treated as advisory in nature. Thus, the basis to challenge these remarks does not survive and hence there is no need to dwell any further on this aspect. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the adverse remarks, recorded in his ACR for the year 1993, were communicated to him on 27.01.1996. Hence this delay of two & half years in communicating these remarks has seriously prejudiced the petitioner, and these remarks are liable to be quashed. He has further submitted that these adverse remarks, recorded in the ACR for the year 1993, are based on the same material which led to a departmental enquiry against him wherein he was exonerated. His exoneration in the departmental enquiry should be deemed to have the effect of wiping out the adverse entries in the ACRs. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Tek Chand v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur, [1994(2) WLC (Raj.) 688], and Rai Singh Bissu v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : [2008(2) WLN 73].
(3.) LEARNED counsel has further submitted that in any case, these adverse remarks for the year 1993 are vitiated as the officer, who recorded these remarks, was biased against the petitioner, and hence these remarks were not recorded properly as there was no basis to record the same. In support of these submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in S.K. Bansal v. The Rajasthan High Court, [2002(7) SLR 667], and judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati & Anr. [ : 1996 (5) SCC 103], State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr. [ : 1997(4) SCC 7], and P.K. Shastri v. State of M.P. & Ors. [ : 1999(7) SCC 329].;