B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) PETITIONER , who is a judicial officer and a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service, has challenged the adverse entries recorded in his annual confidential report for the year 1991, communicated to him vide letter dated 8.2.1993 contained in Annex. 1 to the writ petition and additional adverse entry for the same year vide letter date 19.3.1993 contained in Annex. 5 to the petition.
(2.) PETITIONER was posted as a Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer from 6.6.1990 to 10.1.1992. After his transfer from Jaisalmer to Churu, the learned Inspecting Judge of Jaisalmer made the inspection of the Court at Jaisalmer on 27.4.1992 and made the inspection note, which is contained in Annex. R/l to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Learned District Judge also submitted the inspection report, which forms part of Annex. 1 to the petition. On the basis of that, aforesaid adverse entries were made in petitioner's A.C.R. Adverse entry communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.2.1993 reads as under: The record of CJM Court was found in a mess. No register was properly maintained. There was no control over office. Returns sent were based on no data. It is not known how figures of disposal and institution were worked -out. Processes were not issued for months together. It appears that no effort was made by the officer to effectively control the working of the office. His control over office was very poor. Figure of disposal was given Without record. Bad officer. Subsequently, vide letter dated 12.3.1993, the respondent No. 2 communicated the petitioner that in continuation of the earlier remarks made vide letter dated 8.2.1993, the entry made below, may also be treated as a part of that letter: He lacks control over the staff and work. The work of CJM Court was found in mess. No proper maintenance of Registers was there and the figures of disposal and pendency that were shown in the returns was not based on record. On account of all this the Court of CJM, Jaisalmer could not be inspected by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. From the above, the only conclusion to be drawn is that he was a rackless officer having no administrative control. His judgments were also notupto mark. He is a below average officer.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, petitioner made a representation dated 13th April, 1993 contained in Annex. 9 to the petition and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13th May, 1993 contained in Annex. 10 to the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the same adverse entries and rejection of his representation vide order dated 13th May, 1993 have been challenged in this writ petition.;