Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is seeking quashing of adverse remarks pertaining to the period 1.1.1996 to 18.4.1996, which were communicated to him on 16.2.1999. The petitioner, who was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was posted as Special Judge, SC/ST (Removal of Atrocity) Court, Jhalawar. He was served with a letter dt. 16.2.1999 whereby the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1996 were communicated to him. The adverse remarks read as under: - "Integrity doubtful" He is not fair and impartial in dealing with the public and Bar. Integrity Certificate with -held (1.1.1996 to 18.4.1996)." He represented against these adverse remarks by filing a detailed representation on 4.3.1999. The representation was rejected, which was communicated to him vide order dt. 31.1.2000 (Annexure -7).
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that these adverse remarks deserve to be expunged as they were similar in nature to the remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the years 1994 and 1995, which were expunged. He has further submitted that all the three adverse Annual Confidential Reports of 1994, 1995 and 1996 were recorded by the same Reporting Officer, who was inimical and biased against the petitioner. He has also submitted that petitioner's representation against the adverse remarks recorded for the year 1996 was not put up before the same Committee which had expunged the adverse remarks recorded in 1994 and 1995. These remarks were similar in nature and in case they had been put up before the same Committee, then they would also have been expunged. He has also contended that there was delay in recording the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1996 and hence the adverse remarks should be excluded from consideration in his service record. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Registrar General, Patna High Court vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad, : AIR 2012 SC 2319. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks recorded for the year 1996 was also considered by the same Committee which had expunged the earlier remarks, and it was only after its due consideration, the representation being without any merit was rejected.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;