2026 INSC 762 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2228 OF 2026

[Arising out of Diary No. 17219 of 2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN … APPLICANT

VERSUS

ABHAY JAIN …OPPONENT

/NON-APPLICANT

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2029 OF 2022

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6107 of 2020]

ABHAY JAIN …APPELLANT

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

FOR RAJASTHAN & ANR.

…RESPONDENT S

JUDGMENT

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 1 of 36

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following

parts:

INDEX

A. FACTUAL MATRIX: .............................................................................. 2

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES ..................................... 8

(i) Submissions on behalf of the Judicial Officer: ............................................... 8

(ii) Submissions on behalf of the Rajasthan High Court, on its administrative

side: ................................................................................................................. 14

C. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION ............................................................. 15

D. ANALYSIS: ......................................................................................... 16

E. CONCLUSION: .................................................................................... 35

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 2 of 36

A. FACTUAL MATRIX:

1. Delay condoned.

2. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the High Court of

Judicature of Rajasthan on its administrative side (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘Rajasthan HC’), original respondent no. 1, seeking

clarification of the judgment & order dated 15.03.2022 rendered by this

Court in the main matter i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2022. The short

question that falls for our consideration is whether the directions

contained in the said judgment, whereby the opponent/non-applicant

Judicial Officer, original appellant, was ordered to be reinstated with

continuity of service, seniority and all consequential benefits,

necessarily entitle him to the grant of Selection Scale or Super Time

Scale, despite the absence of the requisite number of Annual

Confidential Reports (“ACRs”) for six of the seven years immediately

preceding the date on which his case came to be considered by the

Higher Judiciary Committee.

3. The factual background giving rise to the present miscellaneous

application is as follows:

a. The opponent was appointed as a Judicial Officer in the District

Judge Cadre of the Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 2013.

Upon being discharged from service in the year 2016, he had filed

a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 3 of 36

discharge order. Since the writ petition was dismissed by the High

Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.2019, the opponent had come

before this Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2022, in which

the present miscellaneous application has now been filed for our

consideration.

b. This Court, vide Judgment & Order dated 15.03.2022 (hereinafter

referred to as the “subject judgment”), allowed the appeal, by

quashing the discharge order and awarding the opponent

reinstatement with all consequential benefits including continuity

of service and seniority, along with 50% back wages. The operative

paragraph of the subject judgment reads thus:

“72. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned

order of the High Court dated 21.10.2019 is set aside and the

discharge order dated 27.01.2016 is quashed. Keeping in

view that the appellant has not worked as judicial officer after

he was discharged, we direct that while the appellant be

reinstated with all consequential benefits including

continuity of service and seniority, but will be entitled to

be paid only 50% back wages, which may be paid within a

period of four months from today.”

(Emphasis supplied)

c. Following this Court’s order, referred to above, the opponent

Judicial Officer was reinstated on 13.04.2022, and his name was

inserted at S.No. 255A in the Revised Seniority List dated

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 4 of 36

22.06.2020, on the basis of his original seniority as per

Government Cyclic Order dated 15.07.2013.

d. Thereafter, a representation was filed by the opponent before the

Higher Judicial Committee for the grant of Super Time Scale

claiming that he had come within the zone of consideration for the

same. However, when the name of the opponent Judicial Officer

was considered for grant of super time scale by the Higher

Judiciary Committee, it was decided vide resolution dated

19.05.2023, that an application seeking clarification be filed before

the Supreme Court. The Higher Judiciary Committee, concluded

its meeting dated 19.05.2023, with the following observations:

“[...] As Shri Abhay Jain remained out of service, out of last

seven years (i.e. from the year 2015 to 2021), except ACR for

the year 2015, as he did not actually perform judicial work,

the ACRs' for the remaining six years are not available.

Upon detailed deliberation, the Committee is of the view that

it would be appropriate to seek clarification of the order of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shri Abhay Jain as to

whether consequential benefits would include grant of

Selection Scale/Super Time Scale automatically, even without

availability of ACRs of six years out of last seven years.

However, in order to protect the interest of Shri Abhay Jain,

till appropriate application for clarification is filed and decided

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one post in the Selection Scale

is kept reserved, so that after decision in the matter by the

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 5 of 36

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of Shri Abhay Jain may be

considered accordingly.”

(Emphasis supplied)

e. Accordingly, the High Court decided to file the present

miscellaneous application, praying for the following:

“Clarify as to whether the consequential benefits awarded by

this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.03.2022 in Civil Appeal

No. 2029/2022 titled as ‘Abhay Jain vs. The High Court of

Judicature at Rajasthan & Anr.’ would include grant of

Selection Scale/Super Time Scale without the availability of

the ACRs of six years out of last seven years;”

4. When the present miscellaneous application came up for hearing on

12.07.2024, this Court was of the considered view that the High Court

on its own should have looked into the directions issued by this Court

and ought to have taken an appropriate decision for the purpose of

giving effect to such directions. It was added that if the opponent

Judicial Officer would find himself aggrieved in any manner with the

decision that the High Court on its administrative side may take, then

in such circumstances, this Court shall hear both the sides on merits

and resolve the matter.

5. Accordingly, the Higher Judiciary Committee held a meeting on

03.08.2024 to discuss the matter. However, the Higher Judiciary

Committee was of the opinion that since the parameters of grant of

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 6 of 36

Selection Scale and Super-Time Scale have been demarcated by the Full

Court of the Rajasthan High Court by way of its Resolution dated

15.01.2011, therefore, any application of Selection Scale and Super-

Time Scale, which has mandatory ACR criteria laid down by the Full

Court, has to be considered by the Full Court itself.

6. Hence, on 21.08.2024, a Full Court Meeting of the Rajasthan High Court

was convened for deliberation upon the above-mentioned agenda.

However, as the minutes of the meeting dated 21.08.2024 reflects, the

opponent Judicial Officer was not found suitable for grant of selection

scale or Super Time scale, but no reasons were stated for arriving at

such a decision. The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting dated

21.08.2024 reads thus:

“The case of Shri Abhay Jain was considered for grant of selection

scale. Taking into consideration the ACRs, it is found that till date

Shri Abhay Jain has been assessed for the years 2013, 2014, 2015

and 2022. The ACRs for the year 2013, 2014 and 2015 were under

consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same has been

considered. The officer was graded ‘Very Good’ in the year 2022.

The ACRs for the period ending 31st December, 2023 are not made

available as they are pending consideration and not finalised. The

grant of selection scale as well as super-time scale is governed by

provisions contained in Rules 49 and 50 of the RJS Rules, 2010

respectively. The Full Court, vide its resolution dated 15th January,

2011, also laid down criteria for grant of Selection scale and Super

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 7 of 36

Time scale. Rules 49 and 50 of the RJS Rules and relevant part of

Full Court resolution dated 15th January, 2011 read as under:

“(Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010: Rules 49 and

50):

49. Grant of selection scale to District Judges. - The

Officers of the District Judge cadre, who have put in not less

than 5 years service shall be granted selection scale by the

Court on the basis of merit to the extent of 35 percent of the

effective strength of District Judges.

50. Grant of super-time scale to District Judges. - The

Officers of the District Judge cadre, who have put in not less

than three years service in the selection scale shall be granted

super-time scale by the court on the basis of merit after taking

into consideration the entire service record to the extent of 15

percent of effective strength of District Judges."

(Relevant portion of Resolution dated 15th January,

2011):

“The incumbents who are having at least five good, very good

or outstanding entries with no adverse remarks in the

preceding seven years are entitled for grant of selection scale.

However, in case the continuous service of the officer in order

of seniority is five years or more but less than seven years

than the assessment be made on the basis of available

record.

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 8 of 36

The incumbents who are having at least two outstanding or

very good and three good entries with no below average entry

in the preceding seven years and on consideration of entire

service record, are entitled for grant of Super Time Scale.”

Upon consideration of the records and ACRs, Shri Abhay Jain

is not found suitable for grant of selection scale or super time

scale.

The meeting ended with the Vote of Thanks to the Chair.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. Since the opponent Judicial Officer was aggrieved by the above-

mentioned decision rendered at the Full Court Meeting dated

21.08.2024, both the parties appeared before this Court on 06.09.2024

and 25.10.2024 respectively and placed their respective submissions

before us.

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

(i) Submissions on behalf of the Judicial Officer:

8. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Judicial

Officer, fairly submitted that in part compliance with the subject

judgment, the Judicial Officer was granted the benefit of seniority with

effect from the date of his initial appointment in the year 2013. However,

despite the grant of seniority, the selection scale or super time scale

have been denied to the Judicial Officer arbitrarily since the

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 9 of 36

recommendations of the Higher Judiciary Committee dated 03.08.2024

had simply stated that the Judicial Officer was not found suitable for

grant of Selection Scale/ Super Time Scale, without assigning any

reasons for the same.

9. He submitted that this Court in the subject judgment clearly directed

that the Judicial Officer be reinstated with all consequential benefits

including continuity of service and seniority, and therefore he cannot be

denied the benefit of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale. He submits

that denying such scale to the opponent amounts to rendering this

Court’s direction of granting ‘all consequential benefits’ to the Judicial

Officer otiose.

10. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued that the Judicial Officer

cannot be held responsible or be blamed for the non-availability of ACRs

for the period 2016 to 2021 since he was unlawfully kept away from

service for the period 27.01.2016 to 13.04.2022. He submitted that the

Judicial Officer had been wrongfully discharged and therefore, the

applicant cannot now seek to derive any advantage of its own

wrongdoing to deny him the benefit of the pay scale to which he would

have been entitled, had he been allowed to perform his duties.

11. He further submitted that the direction of this Court in the subject

judgment leaves no manner of doubt that while considering the grant of

Selection Scale or Super Time Scale, the period of discharge, i.e.

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 10 of 36

27.01.2016 to 13.04.2022 shall be considered as period rendered in

service by the Judicial Officer. He argued that any other interpretation

would be in derogation of the express direction of the subject judgment.

Furthermore, he submitted that Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules,

1951, provides that where an officer has been fully exonerated, the

period of absence from duty shall be treated as period spent on duty for

all purposes.

12. The learned senior counsel placed strong reliance on this Court’s

judgment in Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Dragendra Singh

Jadon [(2022) 8 SCC 378] to submit that the employer cannot take

advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing the employee from

service and denying him the benefit of seniority, promotion and other

benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his

duties. Thus, he argued that, in the present matter as well, the judicial

officer cannot be denied the benefit of Selection Scale or Super Time

Scale for non-availability of ACRs as he cannot be blamed for the same.

13. The learned senior counsel drew our attention to the fact that officers

junior to the opponent have been granted the benefits of Selection Scale

and Super Time Scale in the years 2019 and 2023 respectively, while

the opponent remains deprived of such consequential benefit. In this

regard, the learned senior counsel relied on this Court’s judgment in

Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan [(2012) 13

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 11 of 36

SCC 94] wherein it was held that the petitioner therein was entitled to

be considered for the promotion notionally when an officer junior to him

was promoted and also directed that the officer would be entitled to all

consequential benefits.

14. Furthermore, the learned senior counsel also placed reliance upon this

Court’s judgment in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC

109] wherein, it was held that when an employee is completely

exonerated, he has to be given all consequential benefits from the date

on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary

proceedings.

15. The learned senior counsel submitted that in cases where ACRs of an

officer are not available for any reason (such as non-communication of

ACRs, non-preparation, etc.), the decision regarding promotion /grant

of scale ought to be taken on the basis of available ACRs of the officer.

However, he added that uncommunicated and uninitiated ACRs of an

officer cannot be used to his prejudice and have to be excluded while

considering the grant of consequential benefits. In this regard, he

further submitted that this Court’s decisions in Prabhu Dayal

Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC & Ors. [(2015) 14 SCC 427] and in

R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur & Ors., [2023 SCC

OnLine SC 178] respectively are of significant relevance. In Prabhu

Dayal (supra), the applicable rules therein had provided that the last

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 12 of 36

five ACRs were to be taken into consideration for promotion. However,

since the ACRs for some of the years in the subject time period were

uncommunicated, it was held that the case for promotion had to be

considered on the basis of the two ACRs which had been communicated

and valid. Similarly, in the case of R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra), wherein

the ACRs for two out of the required four years were not communicated,

this Court had directed that the promotion of the petitioner therein be

considered on the basis of the available ACRs of the remaining years.

16. Thus, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the present case as

well, since the Judicial officer cannot be blamed for the non-availability

of ACRs for the period 2016 to 2021, he ought to be given the benefit of

Selection Scale/Super Time Scale on the basis of the available ACRs. He

drew this Court’s attention to the fact that the available ACRs of the

Judicial Officer are as under:

S.No. Period Remarks in ACR

1 2013 Very good

2 2014 (Part I) Very good

3 2014 (Part II) Good

4 2022 Very good

17. The learned senior counsel in his detailed submissions further added

that in the ACR for the year 2014 (Part II) the remark ‘Good’ was

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 13 of 36

qualified with another comment regarding the requirement to improve

judicial work. However, the learned senior counsel submitted that such

remarks made in the ACR for 2014(PartII) were based upon the enquiry

initiated against the Judicial Officer vide chargesheet issued on

07.08.2015, and not for the period of 2014 for which it was meant to be.

He submitted that as far as the ACR for the year 2015 is concerned, the

said ACR was prepared after the Judicial Officer was discharged. As the

said ACR was never communicated to the Judicial Officer, the subject

judgment had held that the non-communication of the ACR for the year

2015 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India, and that the said ACR could not have been the basis of the

discharge order passed against the Judicial Officer.

18. Furthermore, the learned senior counsel also highlighted the following

findings recorded by this Court in paragraph no. 71 of the judgment, as

being relevant to the determination of the present MA:

a. That the Judicial Officer was competent to pass the bail order

dated 27.04.2015 and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not

been able to prove any extraneous consideration or ulterior motive

on the part of the officer.

b. That there was no material to showcase unsatisfactory

performance of the Judicial Officer in terms of the requirement

under Rule 45 and 46 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 14 of 36

19. Having put forth the submissions as mentioned hereinabove, the

learned senior counsel prayed that the applicant/Rajasthan HC on its

administrative side, be directed to grant the benefit of Selection Scale

and Super Time Scale to the Judicial Officer, in terms of the subject

judgment.

(ii) Submissions on behalf of the Rajasthan H igh Court, on its

administrative side:

20. Mr. Gopal Jha, the learned Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the

applicant, Rajasthan High Court on its administrative side, submitted

that the Full Court in its meeting convened on 21.08.2024, found that

the opponent was not suitable for grant of Selection Scale or Super Time

Scale for want of requisite number of ‘Outstanding/Very Good/Good’

entries in his available ACRs of the preceding years.

21. The learned counsel submitted that the opponent has only four ACRs,

i.e. 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2022 respectively, as he remained out of service

from January, 2016 to May, 2022.

22. With regard to the communication of the ACR for the year 2015, the

learned counsel submitted that the ACR had not been conveyed since it

was still in the process of being filled up and could not be completed by

the time the opponent was discharged from service in August 2016.

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 15 of 36

Since the prevalent practice is to not convey ACRs to officers who have

retired or not in service, the ACR for the year 2015 could not be conveyed

to the opponent when he remained out of service.

23. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prayed

that taking into consideration the recommendation dated 03.08.2024 of

the Higher Judiciary Committee, and the resolution of the Full Court of

the Rajasthan HC dated 21.0.2024, this Court may clarify the order

dated 15.03.2022 as regards the granting of Selection Scale or Super

Time Scale to the Judicial Officer.

C. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

24. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and having

gone through the materials on record, the following question falls for our

consideration:

Whether the ‘consequential benefits’ awarded to the Judicial

Officer in the present matter, vide Judgment and Order dated

15.03.2022, would include the grant of Selection Scale or Super

Time Scale without the requisite number of Annual Confidential

Report(s)?

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 16 of 36

D. ANALYSIS:

25. Our adjudication essentially revolves around the core issue whether the

opponent Judicial Officer is entitled to the grant of Selection Scale or

Super Time Scale, despite the non-availability of the requisite number

of ACRs. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the applicant

Rajasthan HC is that, although the opponent has been reinstated with

the consequential benefits of seniority and continuity of service, yet the

absence of the requisite number of ACRs for the intervening period

nevertheless disentitles him from being considered for the grant of

Selection Scale or Super Time Scale.

26. The question whether the Judicial Officer could have been denied the

benefit of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale for want of the requisite

ACRs has to be considered in the backdrop of the circumstances which

led to the non-availability of those ACRs. In other words, before

examining the legal effect of the absence of the requisite ACRs, it

becomes necessary to ascertain whether such absence is attributable to

the Judicial Officer or not. It is in this context that the decisions of this

Court in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and Dragendra Singh Jadon

(supra) respectively, relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing

for the Judicial Officer, assume considerable significance. Both the

decisions embody the principle that the consequential benefits of

seniority, pay, promotion and the like, cannot be refused merely because

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 17 of 36

fulfilment of the eligibility conditions had been rendered impossible by

the employer’s own wrongful act of causing impediment in the service

tenure of the employee.

27. In K.V. Jankiraman (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court

recognised that where an employee is completely exonerated and is not

blameworthy in the least, he ought not to be deprived of the benefits

which would have ordinarily accrued to him in the normal course of

service. It was held that such an employee is entitled not only to the

notional promotion, but also to the salary and all consequential benefits

of the promotional post from the date on which he would have ordinarily

been promoted but for the disciplinary intervention. The underlying

rationale is that an employee cannot be prejudiced by the circumstances

for which he bears no responsibility and which have subsequently been

found to be unjustified. The relevant observation of this Court in K.V.

Jankiraman (supra), reads thus:

“23.There is no doubt that when an employee is completely

exonerated and is not visited with the penalty even of censure

indicating thereby that he was not blameworthy in the least,

he should not be deprived of any benefits including the salary

of the promotional post. It was urged on behalf of the appellant-

authorities in all these cases that a person is not entitled to the

salary of the post unless he assumes charge of the same. […]

xxx xxx xxx

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 18 of 36

25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on

behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of “no work no pay”

is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the

employee although he is willing to work is kept away from

work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case

where the employee remains away from work for his own

reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this

reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.

26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the

Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated

meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the

least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he

has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post

along with the other benefits from the date on which he

would have normally been promoted but for the

disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, there may be

cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are,

for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the

clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal

proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability

of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such

circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the

power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary

for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he

deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and

enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such

consideration may become necessary. To ignore, however, such

circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that

in every case when an e mployee is exonerated in

disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 19 of 36

for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the

administration and jeopardise public interests. […]”

(Emphasis supplied)

28. This Court in Dragedra Singh Jadon (supra), similarly endorsed the

view that the employer cannot deny the consequential benefits arising

out of employment, when the dismissal itself was wrongful. The relevant

observation of this Court in Dragedra Singh Jadon (supra) reads thus:

“21. The appellant Bank cannot take advantage of its own

wrong of wrongfully dismissing the respondent from service,

to deny him the benefit of seniority, promotion and other

benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had

attended to his duties.”

(Emphasis supplied)

29. Therefore, it is necessary to first ascertain whether the opponent

Judicial Officer can be held liable for the non-availability of the requisite

ACRs, and for that it is imperative to refer to the subject judgment. In

the present matter, this Court had quashed the discharge order, with

the observation that though the opponent might have been negligent in

the sense that he did not carefully go through the case file and had failed

to take notice of the order of the High Court, which was on his file, yet

such negligence cannot be treated to be a misconduct. It was observed

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 20 of 36

that merely because a wrong order has been passed by the opponent or

the action taken by him could have been different, the same by itself

without anything more did not warrant initiation of disciplinary

proceedings against the Judicial Officer. It was also noted that the

present case did not involve a string of continuous illegal orders that

might have been alleged to be passed for extraneous considerations.

Rather, the present case revolved around only a single bail order, and

that too was passed with competent jurisdiction. It was categorically

noted that in the present case, there was no material to showcase

unsatisfactory performance of the opponent in terms of requirement

under Rules 45 and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010

(“RJS Rules, 2010”) respectively. It was emphatically stated by this

Court that this is not the case where there are strong grounds to suspect

the opponent’s bona fide and even if the opponent’s act is considered to

be negligent, it cannot be treated as “misconduct”. The relevant

observation of this Court made in the judgment & order dated

15.03.2022, reads thus:

“69. In light of the above judicial pronouncements, we hold that the

appellant may have been guilty of negligence in the sense

that he did not carefully go through the case file and did not

take notice of the order of the High Court which was on his

file. This negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct.

Moreover, the enquiry officer virtually sat as a court of appeal

picking holes in the order granting bail, even when he could not find

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 21 of 36

any extraneous reason for the grant of the bail order. Notably, in

the present case, there was not a string of continuous illegal

orders that have been alleged to be passed for extraneous

considerations. The present case revolves only around a

single bail order, and that too was passed with competent

jurisdiction. As has been rightly held by this Court in Sadhna

Chaudhary (supra), mere suspicion cannot constitute

“misconduct”. Any ‘probability’ of misconduct needs to be supported

with oral or documentary material, and this requirement has not

been fulfilled in the present case. These observations assume

importance in light of the specific fact that there was no allegation

of illegal gratification against the present appellant. As has been

rightly held by this Court, such relief-oriented judicial approaches

cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty

and integrity of an officer.

xxx xxx xxx

71. To conclude, we are of the firm view that in the present

case there was no material to showcase unsatisfactory

performance of the appellant in terms of requirement under

Rule 45 and 46 of the RJS Rules, 2010. Moreover, the

appellant’s discharge was not simpliciter, as claimed by the

respondent. The non-communication of the ACRs to the

appellant has been proved to be arbitrary and since the

respondent choose to hold an enquiry into appellant’s alleged

misconduct, the termination of his service is by way of punishment

because it puts a stigma on his competence and thus affects his

future career. In such a case, the appellant would be entitled to the

protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Moreover, the adverse

comments in the ACR for the year 2015 could not have been the

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 22 of 36

basis on which the appellant was discharged from service. The

appellant was never granted an opportunity to improve and

there was no intimation to him about his performance being

unsatisfactory. Importantly, no verifiable complaint was

filed against the appellant that could form the basis of the

disciplinary proceeding against him. After perusing all the

relevant record, we hold that the appellant was competent to

pass the bail order dated 27.04.2015 and that the

Respondent has not been able to prove the pr esence of any

extraneous consideration or ulterior motive on the part of the

appellant. It should also be highlighted here that neither the bail

order dated 27.04.2015 was ever challenged by the State before

any Court of law, nor was any complaint received against the

appellant regarding the said bail order. This is not the case where

there are strong grounds to suspect the appellant’s bona

fides. Even if appellant’s act is considered to be negligent, it

cannot be treated as “misconduct”.

72. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of

the High Court dated 21.10.2019 is set aside and the discharge

order dated 27.01.2016 is quashed. Keeping in view that the

appellant has not worked as judicial officer after he was discharged,

we direct that while the appellant be reinstated with all

consequential benefits including continuity of service and

seniority but will be entitled to be paid only 50% back wages, which

may be paid within a period of four months from today.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 23 of 36

30. Thus, it has already been held by this Court in the present case that the

opponent was wrongfully discharged from service. It is but a natural and

inevitable corollary of such such wrongful discharge that the opponent

could not have earned the requisite number of ACRs for the relevant

period of time, since he was kept out of service by the applicant itself.

The absence of the requisite ACRs, therefore, is not attributable to any

omission, default or deficiency on the part of the opponent, but is solely

the direct consequence of the applicant’s wrongful action. In such

circumstances, it would be manifestly unjust to permit the applicant to

rely upon a shortcoming which it itself created in order to deny the

opponent of the consequential service benefits that would otherwise

have accrued to him. The law does not permit a party to derive an

advantage from its own wrongful act. Consequently, the opponent

cannot be made to bear the adverse consequences of the wrongful

discharge, by being denied consideration for the grant of the Selection

Scale or the Super Time Scale on the ground of non-availability of the

requisite number of ACRs, for the period during which he was

unlawfully kept out of service.

31. This Court in a plethora of its decisions has held that even when the

requisite number of valid ACRs are not available, that in itself should

not make the employee ineligible for the pay scale or promotion involved.

Rather, in circumstances where the employee is found to be not

responsible for the default, the evaluations for the respective pay scale

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 24 of 36

or promotion are to be undertaken based on the remaining ACRs which

are valid. We may refer to this Court’s judgment in Prabhu Dayal

(supra) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra) respectively to expound the

position of law on this issue. In both Prabhu Dayal (supra), and R.K.

Jibanlata Devi (supra) respectively, this Court held that when, due to

the employer’s fault, the ACRs are short of the number required to meet

the eligibility criteria, the employee would nevertheless have to be

considered for the promotion or pay scale based on the other remaining

valid ACRs.

32. The relevant observation of this Court in Prabhu Dayal (supra) is as

follows:

“7. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied that the

impugned order passed by the High Court, deserves to be set aside,

inasmuch as, the claim of the appellant could not be ignored by

taking into consideration, uncommunicated annual confidential

reports for the years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1998-1999,

wherein the appellant was assessed as "good". In the absence of

the aforesaid entries, it is apparent, that the remaining

entries of the appellant being "very good", he would be

entitled to be considered fit for the promotion, to the post of

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, on the basis of the then

prevailing DoPT guidelines, and the remaining valid annual

confidential reports.

xxx xxx xxx

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 25 of 36

9. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the

respondents ought to be directed to reconsider the claim of

promotion of the appellant, to the post of Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax, for the vacancies which arose during the years 2000-

2001 and 2001-2002 on the basis of the communicated reports

for the years 1997-1998 and 1999 -2000, within a period of

three months from today. Ordered accordingly.

10. In case the appellant is found to be entitled for promotion to the

post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, he shall be promoted to

the said post, with effect from the date of his entitlement. In such an

eventuality, he shall also be entitled to all arrears of salary, as

would have been payable to him, if he had been promoted as Chief

Commissioner of Income Tax at the right time. Simultaneously, he

would be entitled to revision of his retiral benefits.

11. In case the appellant is found suitable for the promotion, this

order should not be taken as permitting the authorities to interfere

with the promotions already made. Suffice it to state that, to

accommodate”

(Emphasis supplied)

33. Similarly, this Court in R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra) had held that when

certain ACRs were found to be invalid due to non-communication by the

employer, the employee deserved to be considered for promotion in issue

therein, based on the ACRs for the remaining years. The relevant

observation of this Court in R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra) reads thus:

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 26 of 36

“22. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the case

of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar

as on 9-4-2021 is required to be considered afresh ignoring the

uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016 -2017 and 2019-20

and her case is required to be considered afresh taking into

consideration the ACRs for the years 2017 -2018 and 2018-

2019 for which the petitioner was having "Very Good"

gradings.

23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present

petition is allowed. The DPC proceedings dated 9-4-2021 denying

the promotion to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar are

hereby quashed and set aside. The case of the petitioner for

promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on 9-4-2021 i.e. the

date on which the juniors came to be promoted is directed to be

considered afresh ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years

2016-2017 and 2019- 20 and thereafter the DPC/competent

authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and

taking into consideration the ACRS of remaining years i.e.

2017-2018 and 2018-2019. Such an exercise be completed within

a period of six weeks from today.

24. In case after fresh exercise as above the petitioner is promoted

to the post of Assistant Registrar, it goes without saying that she

shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the

arrears, seniority, etc. w.e.f. 9-4-2021 the day on which the juniors

came to be promoted.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 27 of 36

34. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are

of the considered view that the opponent could not have been denied the

benefit of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale merely because the

requisite number of ACRs were unavailable for the period during which

he was kept out of service pursuant to his wrongful discharge. As noted

hereinabove, this Court in the present matter has categorically held that

the opponent’s discharge was wholly unsustainable. In such

circumstances, consistent with the principle enunciated by this Court

in Prabhu Dayal (supra) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra) respectively,

the opponent’s entitlement is required to be assessed on the basis of the

valid ACRs and cannot be allowed to be defeated on account of the

absence of requisite number of ACRs occasioned solely by the

applicant’s own wrongful action.

35. We may turn to the relevant paragraphs of the subject judgment wherein

this Court had referred to the opponent’s ACRs for the years 2013, 2014

and 2015 respectively, in order to arrive at its decision. The same reads

thus:

“43. The material placed before the Higher Judicial Committee,

which recommended the discharge of the appellant, clearly shows

that no adverse remarks were made against the appellant

except in relation to the grant of bail on 27.04.2015. The said

material consisted of Bi-Annual Reports/Special Reports and

the ACRs of the appellant. The Bi-annual/Special Reports for

the period of July 2013-January 2014, January 2014 -July

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 28 of 36

2014 and July 2014-January 2015, which were placed before

the committee makes it clear that the work and conduct of the

appellant was “good” and his integrity was never doubted.

Furthermore, the ACR of the appellant for the year 2013

contains the comment “very good” and mentions that the

integrity of the appellant was never in doubt . Similarly, the

ACR for the year 2014(Part -I) records the comment “very

good” for the appellant and also provides him with an

integrity certificate.

44. The ACR for the year 2014(Part -II) contains the remark

“good” for the appellant. During this period, the appellant was

working as the Presiding Officer, Labour cum Industrial Tribunal. In

this context, it is pertinent to note that the comment by the Inspecting

Judge regarding the requirement to “improve judicial work” is based

upon the enquiry initiated against the appellant vide chargesheet

issued on 07.08.2015, which related to his functioning as Special

Judge, ACD cases Court, Bharatpur and not for the period of 2014.

Additionally, the aforesaid comment by the Inspecting Judge is

contrary to the comments made by him in the Special Report for the

contemporaneous period which clearly records his conduct,

performance and work throughout the period to be “good”. Lastly,

no adverse remark is made even by the Administrative Judge,

who only added an advisory remark for the officer to

concentrate on judicial work and improve the quality.

Notably, no remark was made against the integrity of the

appellant.

xxx xxx xxx

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 29 of 36

46. In our opinion, to argue that the comments and observations in

this 2015 ACR were the basis on which the appellant was

discharged, is misplaced and erroneous. Firstly, a bare perusal of

the ACR reveals that the top of this ACR itself carried a comment

that read “Discharged from Service”. Secondly, the Higher Judicial

Committee had, even prior to the submission of the 2015 ACR,

already recommended the discharge of the appellant. Notably, the

ACR for the year 2015 was filled and submitted by the appellant on

20.01.2016, while the Higher Judicial Committee had already

recommended the discharge of the appellant on 24.11.2015 itself

and the impugned order of discharge was passed on 27.01.2016,

admittedly, in pursuance of a Full Court meeting on 20.01.2016.

Additionally, although the learned counsel for the respondent had

submitted before us that the Integrity Certificate of the Appellant

was withheld by the Inspecting Judge, he failed to highlight that the

reason for the certificate being withheld was that the appellant had

been served with a chargesheet and not because of the appellant’s

service record.

47. Moreover, it is not disputed that the ACRs were not

communicated to him within reasonable time. In this context,

a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India

[(2013) 9 SCC 566] has held that:

“In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt [Dev Dutt vs Union

of India] that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be

communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is

legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives.

First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public

servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that

helps him in improving his work and give better results.

Second and equally important, on being made aware of the

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 30 of 36

entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with

the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to

make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered

in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR

brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a

public servant and the system becomes more conforming to

the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that

every entry in ACR-poor, fair, average, good or very good-must

be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.”

(emphasis supplied)

Hence, in light of the above, the non-communication of the

ACRs to the appellant in the present case is arbitrary and as

has been held by this court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

[(1978) 1 SCC 248], such arbitrariness violated Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

xxx xxx xxx

51. We also find merit in the submission of the appellant that the

adverse comments in the ACR for the year 2015 could not have been

the basis on which the appellant was discharged from service.

Additionally, it is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the

Respondent has himself submitted that the ACR for the year 2015

was recorded after the discharge order was passed and that the

comments of the Administrative Judge were made on 08.06.2016

and are based upon the enquiry and the subsequent discharge of

the appellant. Moreover, upon the perusal of the ACR for the year

2015, it is revealed that despite the comments recorded, the overall

performance of the Appellant was rated as “good” by the Inspecting

Judge himself. Part-II of the said ARC also contains the comment

“good” on the appellant’s capacity of handling files systematically

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 31 of 36

and the comment “Yes” on whether the appellant is fair and

impartial in dealing with the public and the bar. Therefore, we are

of the opinion that the submissions of the learned counsel of the

appellant holds merit that there was no material on record to

showcase unsatisfactory performance of the appellant in

terms of requirement under Rule 45 and 46 of the RJS Rules,

2010.

52. There appears to be no infirmity in the appellant’s record

and the entire recommendation of discharge by the Higher Judicial

Committee is based upon the passing of the bail order dated

27.04.2015. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the Enquiry

Judge of the Disciplinary Proceeding against the appellant was also

a part of the Higher Judicial Committee which had to provide

recommendations regarding discharge/confirmation of judicial

officers.

xxx xxx xxx

54. We are in agreement with the ratio laid down in the case of

Ishwar Chand Jain (supra) that every judicial officer is likely to

commit mistake of some kind or the other in passing orders in the

initial stage of his service, which a mature judicial officer would not

do. However, if the orders are passed without there being any

corrupt motive, the same should be over-looked by the High Court

and proper guidance should be provided to him. In the present case,

admittedly there was no intimation to appellant about his

performance being unsatisfactory and hence he was deprived of his

opportunity to improve as a judicial officer.

xxx xxx xxx

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 32 of 36

69. In light of the above judicial pronouncements, we hold that the

appellant may have been guilty of negligence in the sense that he

did not carefully go through the case file and did not take notice of

the order of the High Court which was on his file. This negligence

cannot be treated to be misconduct.[…]”

(Emphasis supplied)

36. Thus, we find that this Court has held that the adverse remarks

contained in the opponent’s ACR for the year 2015 could not have formed

the basis of his discharge and further held that the non-communication

of the said ACR was arbitrary. In view of the law laid down by this Court

in Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566], an

uncommunicated ACR cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the

employee while determining his entitlement to promotion, pay scale or

any career advancement. Consequently, the ACR for the year 2015

cannot be taken into consideration for determining t he opponent’s

entitlement to Selection Scale or Super Time Scale. Therefore, as already

explained hereinabove, it is in line with the principle enunciated by this

Court in Prabhu Dayal (supra) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra),

respectively, we hold that the opponent is liable to be assessed on the

basis of the remaining valid ACRs i.e. those for the years 2013 and 2014

(both Part I & Part II), which contain the following remarks:

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 33 of 36

S.No. Period Remarks in ACR

1 2013 Very good

2 2014 (Part I) Very good

3 2014 (Part II) Good

37. As the above-quoted findings of this Court clearly indicate, the service

record of the opponent, as it stood prior to his wrongful discharge, has

been found to be free from any material warranting denial of career

progression, but rather contain the remarks “Very good” and “Good”

along with integrity certificates.

38. Therefore, upon perusal of the ACRs for the year 2013 and 2014 (Part I

& Part II), we hold that in order to give full effect to the relief of

reinstatement as granted by this Court, the opponent shall be entitled to

the grant of the Selection Scale and Super Time Scale with effect from

the dates on which he first became due for such consideration in the

normal course of service as per Rule 49 and Rule 50 of the RJS Rules,

2010, respectively, read with the Full Court Resolution of the Rajasthan

HC dated 15th January, 2011.

39. The materials on record indicate that the opponent was appointed as an

Additional District Judge vide order dated 15.07.2013 [Order no.

F.19(8)Nyaya/2011], issued by the Law & Legal Affairs Department,

Government of Rajasthan. Since he was reinstated in service with the

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 34 of 36

consequential benefits of continuity of service and seniority, he can be

said to have completed five years of service on 15.07.2018. Therefore,

as per Rule 49 of the RJS Rules, 2010, the earliest point in time when

the opponent can be said to have become due for consideration for the

grant of Selection Scale, is 16.07.2018. It is not in dispute that vide

order dated 16.07.2019 [Order No. Estt. (RJS) 55/2019], the Registrar

General, Rajasthan High Court, granted the benefit of Selection Scale to

the officers recruited alongside (and even those junior to) the opponent

in accordance with their respective dates of eligibility starting July, 2018

onwards. Accordingly, we hold that the opponent is entitled to the grant

of Selection Scale with effect from 16.07.2018.

40. Once the opponent is held entitled to Selection Scale with effect from

16.07.2018, the period notionally spent in Selection Scale must

necessarily be reckoned for the purpose of granting Super Time Scale.

Consequently, upon completion of the period of three years in Selection

Scale, as prescribed in Rule 50 of the RJS Rules, 2010, the earliest point

in time when the opponent can be said to have become due for

consideration for the grant of Super Time Scale is 16.07.2021. It is also

not in dispute that vide order dated 12.09.2023 [Order No. Estt. (RJS)

62/2023], the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, granted the

benefit of Super Time Scale to the officers appointed alongside (and even

those junior to) the opponent in accordance with their respective dates

of eligibility, starting July, 2021 onwards. The opponent is, therefore,

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 35 of 36

equally entitled to the said benefit. Accordingly, we hold that the

opponent is entitled to the grant of Super Time Scale with effect from

16.07.2021.

E. CONCLUSION:

41. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that since the

applicant was itself responsible for the opponent’s wrongful discharge

and the resultant non-availability of the requisite number of ACRs, the

said circumstance could not have been relied upon by it to deny the

opponent the grant of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale. In

consonance with the principles laid down by this Court in Prabhu

Dayal (supra) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra) respectively, we hold

that where the non-availability of the requisite ACRs is attributable to

the employer, the employee’s entitlement to the promotion/pay in

question is required to be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid

ACRs. Accordingly, we hold that the opponent’s entitlement to the

Selection Scale and Super Time Scale is liable to be determined on the

basis of his valid ACRs for the years 2013 and 2014 (Part I & Part II),

respectively.

42. Having regard to the opponent’s valid ACRs for the years 2013 and 2014

(Part I & Part II), read with the findings recorded by this Court whereby

the opponent was granted reinstatement with continuity of service,

seniority and all consequential benefits, we hold that the opponent is

Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 Page 36 of 36

entitled to the grant of Selection Scale with effect from 16.07.2018 and

Super Time Scale with effect from 16.07.2021.

43. We further clarify that the arrears arising from the grant of Selection

Scale and Super Time Scale respectively, shall be computed by giving

effect to the direction contained in the judgment and order dated

15.03.2022 of this Court, with regard to payment of 50% back wages.

The applicant shall accordingly re-fix the opponent’s pay, revise all

consequential benefits and disburse the arrears payable to the opponent

within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

44. With the aforesaid, the miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

45. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

46. Registry shall forward one copy each of this judgment to all the High

Courts.

…………………………………. J.

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

………………………………….J .

(MANOJ MISRA)

New Delhi

29

th

July, 2026