As per case facts, the Petitioner, a Judicial Officer, was compulsorily retired at 55 years due to adverse remarks in his 2014-15 and 2015-16 Annual Confidential Reports, which raised serious ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 16249 of 2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : 31.01.2025
Pronounced on : 15.05.2025
Harjinder Pal Singh*II son of Shri Gurmej Singh …..Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another …..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JU STICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE
Present : Mr. DS Patwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
****
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
Writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 read
with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked to assail the order
dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-21) by which the petitioner on attaining the age
of 55 years has been prematurely retired in public interest from the Punjab
Superior Judicial Services.
2. The factual matrix involved in this case necess ary for
adjudication is detailed below in chronological manner:-
Dates Events
1992 Petitioner initially appointed as Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.),
in Punjab.
09.06.1992 to
17.09.2001
Petitioner remained posted as Civil Judge in different
districts in State of Punjab
17.09.2001 to Petitioner was promoted as Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 2
07.03.2008 Division).
07.03.2008 to
7.04.2009
Petitioner promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-
Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division).
7.4.2009 to
31.03.2011
Petitioner appointed as Addl. District & Sessions Judge
(Adhoc-Fast Track Court).
01.04.2011 to
05.06.2012
Petitioner again posted as Civil Judge (Sr. Division).
06.06.2012 to
10.11.2012
Petitioner again posted as Addl. District & Sessions
Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court.
10.11.2012 Petitioner was promoted on regular basis to the post of
Addl. District & Sessions Judge.
11.03.2015
(P/2)
While the petitioner posted as AD&SJ, at Jalandhar, in
a matrimonial case JMIC, Jalandhar passed an order
stating that one Judicial Officer of Superior Judiciary is
repeatedly trying to influence the JMIC.
21.03.2015
(P/3)
JMIC, Jalandhar submitted his comments stating that
the petitioner repeatedly tried to influence him to vacate
the stay and allow the respondent party to operate the
bank locker.
24.03.2015
Administrative Judge summoned the concerned JMIC
and verified the facts with regard to the complaint made
by him against the petitioner. Even hearing was
afforded to the petitioner.
26.03.2015
(P/4)
The Administrative Judge submitted his comments to
the then Acting Chief Justice for consideration.
April, 2015 Petitioner was transferred from Jalandhar to Tarn
Taran in April, 2015.
18.5.2015
(P/5)
Pursuant to the said note dated 26.03.2015, comments
on all the issues were called from the petitioner.
01.07.2015
(P/6)
Petitioner duly submitted his comments.
05.8.2016
(P/11)
Adverse remarks in ACR of the year 2015-16 were
conveyed.
26.08.2016
(P/15)
A charge sheet under Rule 5 read with Rule 8 of Punjab
Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970
and Rule 3 of Punjab Government Employees Conduct
Rules, 1966 was issued to petitioner.
17.01.2017
(P/12)
Petitioner submitted representation for expunging the
remarks recorded in column Nos. 1(B), 2 and 7 in the
ACR for the year 2015-16 and for up-grading the
remarks recorded in column No. 9 recorded by the
Administrative Judge.
20.02.2017
(P/13)
Representation dated 17.01.2017 submitted by the
petitioner against the remarks of ACR (2015-16) was
considered and rejected by the High Court on
administrative side.
27.02.2017
(P/16)
Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet.
28.02.2017
(P/7)
Adverse remarks in ACR of the year 2014-15 were
conveyed.
17.08.2017
(P/8)
Petitioner submitted representation for expunging the
adverse remarks recorded in ACR (2014-15) and for up-
gradation.
14.02.2018
(P/9)
Said representation dated 17.08.2017 was considered
and rejected by the High Court on administrative side.
08.03.2018
(P/17)
Judicial work assigned to petitioner as Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran was withdrawn.
21.3.2018
(P/18)
Petitioner applied for supply of minutes of the meeting
of the Full Court under the RTI Act, 2005.
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 3
04.04.2018
(P/19)
Information under the RTI Act was supplied to the
petitioner.
10.04.2018
(P/23)
Notification prematurely retiring petitioner on
completion of 55 years of age issued.
20.04.2018
(P/21)
The petitioner was directed to relinquish charge.
19.04.2018
01.05.2018
23.05.2018
(P/20)
(collectively)
Petitioner filed CWP No. 9806 of 2018 challenging
impugned orders wherein notice of motion was issued.
Counsel for petitioner had submitted before the Court
that an order has been passed by the Government on
the recommendation of the High Court for compulsory
retiring the petitioner and therefore, CWP-9806-2018
was adjourned to 23.05.2018.
CWP-9806-2018 was dismissed as infructuous with
liberty to avail appropriate remedy against the order of
premature retirement.
Annexure P-24. Chart showing the final remarks given in the ACRs of
the petitioner from 1992 to 2014.
05.07.2018 Present Petition CWP-16249-2018 filed.
A bare perusal of the service profile of petitioner right from
induction in subordinate judicial service in the year 1992 till his compulsory
retirement in the year 2018 from the Punjab Superior Judicial Services reveals
that during 26 years of his service career, the petitioner had been awarded
average/satisfactory B-Grading remarks in the first nine years of his career
from 1992-93 till 1998-99. Thereafter from 1999-2000 till 2009-2010 the
petitioner was awarded B+Good Grading. For 2010-2011, the petitioner was
again graded as B Average followed by three B+Good Gradings for the years
2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively.
3.1 During the last two years of his career i.e. 2014-15 and 2015-16,
adverse remarks were written by his superiors and his integrity was also
categorized as ‘doubtful’. The details of ACR recorded for the years 2014-15
are as under:-
1. Quantity of work: Unsatisfactory
(a) Conduct of
business in Court
and Office:
Satisfactory.
(b) Quality of
judgment:
Not up to the mark and needs
improvements and better
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 4
application.
2. Quantity of work: Average
3. Capacity of
management,
leadership and
team work:
Average
4. Inter-personal
relationship and
team work:
Has demonstrated a
propensity to interfere with
others functioning.
5. State of health: Apparently good.
6. Period under
observation of the
Administrative
Judge:
2014-2015
7. Integrity Credibility is seriously in
doubt for the reasons
contained in the note of the
undersigned dated 26.03.2015
which may be read in
conjunction with these
remarks.
8. General
assessment
regarding strength
and short-comings:
Come across as an unreliable
officer.
9. Grading C(Below Average)
Part III
Remarks of the
Administrative
Judge
Unreliable officer, with
questionable credibility.
3.2 Similarly, the details of the ACR recorded for the years 2015-16
reads as under:-
1. Quantity of work:
(a) Conduct of
business in Court
and Office:
Average
(b) Quality of
judgment:
Poor
2. Quantity of work: Reasonable
3. Capacity of
management,
leadership and
team work:
Average
4. Inter-personal
relationship and
team work:
Average
5. State of health: Good.
6. Period un der
observation of the
Administrative
Judge:
2015-2016
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 5
7. Integrity Various complaints
concerning his work and
conduct are pending. In the
case of Kavita Aggarwal vs.
Manu Aggarwal, COMA No.4
of 2015 chargesheet is being
issued for imposition of
major penalty. His integrity
needs close scrutiny. Not fit
to be retained in service.
8. General
assessment
regarding strength
and short-comings:
--
9. Grading C(Below Average)(see Column
No.7 above)
Part III
Remarks of the
Administrative
Judge
As above.
4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner raises the following
grounds of challenge to the order of compulsory retirement in public interest:-
i) Once having issued the charge-sheet on 26.08.2016 vide
Annexure P-15, the petitioner made to suffer an order of
compulsory retirement in public interest while dropping
disciplinary proceedings, especially when the subject matter of
disciplinary proceedings and the foundational cause behind
compulsory retirement in public interest was the same.
ii) In the given facts and circumstances, the Court needs to pierce the
veil to go behind the order of compulsory retirement in public
interest to ascertain whether the charge levelled against the
petitioner in disciplinary proceedings was the foundation or
merely the motive of compulsorily retiring the petitioner in public
interest.
5. To adjudicate upon the aforesaid first ground, this Court is guided
by the settled principle of service jurisprudence that even a similar adverse
entry in the integrity column of any particular year in the service career of the
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 6
employee is sufficient to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest.
The settled position of law also reveals that superior Courts are authorized to
pierce the veil to ascertain the truth. Piercing of veil is meant to ascertain
whether pending disciplinary proceedings in the charge levelled therein was
the foundational cause for adopting shortcut method of compulsory retirement
in public interest or not.
5.1 In this exercise of exploring the truth, it is essential for this Court
to find out on the basis of entire service record of the petitioner with greater
emphasis on recent record as to whether there is material available in the file
to substantiate subjective satisfaction of the employer in reaching the
conclusion of compulsory retirement in public interest. The satisfaction of the
employer is no doubt subjective but the same needs to be based on objective
consideration and material.
5.2 This delicate exercise of deciding whether an employee needs to
be retained in service beyond certain age of 50/55/58 years requires to be
conducted on a platform where the employer is allowed ample elbow room to
arrive at a subjective satisfaction which may not be mathematically based on
material and evidence on record, but can very well be based on general/spoken
reputation. However, the objective satisfaction should essentially and
generally be based on some material/evidence on record which indicates that
the employee under scanner is a deadwood and therefore, needs to be weeded
out. No straight jacket formula can be prescribed for conducting this exercise.
On occasions and more so in judicial service, the official concerned is required
to be dealt with great care and caution. The basic and fundamental attribute of
a judicial officer is his integrity, which should at all given times, without fail,
remain above board. The yardstick by which the element of integrity is
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 7
measured in judicial service is much more stringent than the yardstick in any
other service under the State or Union.
5.3 The concept of spoken reputation ostensibly smacks of non-
objectivity. However, spoken reputation particularly in judicial service comes
in handy to the employer when there are occasions of assessing the officer
concerned for designation/promotion/posting/confirmation and deciding
whether or not to retain the officer in judicial service beyond the age of
50/55/58 years. Spoken reputation sometimes may not be based on material or
evidence on record. There may be occasions especially when the Annual
Confidential Report (ACR) of the officer has not yet been written and yet an
assessment is to be made whether to retain him or not. For this purpose,
besides falling back upon the earlier ACRs entries, spoken reputation in the
mind of concerned Administrative Judge/members of Administrative
Committee and other Hon’ble Judges on the Bench can be a good source of
information.
5.4 Pertinently this exercise as aforesaid needs to be undertaken with
great care, caution and circumspection. In processes which involve higher
degree of subjectivity, care has to be taken not to allow prejudices and mala
fides to come to the fore or else these have tendencies to vitiate the process.
5.5 Reverting to the facts of the case, the service profile of the
petitioner demonstrates that one of the last two ACRs for the years 2014-15
and 2015-16 contained serious taint qua the attribute of integrity.
6. The Administrative Judge had commented that the petitioner is
unreliable with questionable integrity. The note dated 26.03.2015 of
Administrative Judge was appended which reads thus:-
“An order passed by Shri G.S.Sekhon, Civil Judge(Junior
Division), posted at Jalandhar was highlighted in the Press,
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 8
throwing up an unsavory controversy. The order dated
11.03.2015 passed by the Officer is extracted here below :-
"In this case, the respondent No.1 is trying to influence the
Court of undersigned through one Judicial Officer of Superior
Judiciary, that too, repeatedly and the said Judicial Officer
repeatedly asked the undersigned to allow respondent No.1 to
operate locker in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the
operation of the locker has already been stayed by the learned
Predecessor of this Court. The name of the officer may be
disclosed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar on
enquiry made by him to the undersigned, if any. So, under these
circumstances, I do not want to decide this case/petition. Hence,
file is ordered to be sent to the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalandhar with a request to transfer this
case/petition to any other Court for proper adjudication. The
parties along with their learned counsels are present and all are
directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jalandhar on 19.3.2015 at 9.30 a.m. Ahlamad is directed to
send the file complete in all respects well before the next date of
hearing. However, respondent is warned not to use such illegal
and unlawful tactics ever."
On my visit to Jalandhar on 24.03.2015, I
summoned the concerned officer and verified the facts. He
stoically stood by the fact that an Additional District Judge Shri
H.P.Singh who is also posted at Jalandhar, was pressurizing
him to pass orders, varying the earlier interim orders which
would have enabled the respondent in the case to have access
to a bank locker standing jointly in the name of the petitioner
and the said respondent.
I then interacted with Shri H.P.Singh, Additional
District Judge who confessed to have talked about the matter
with the concerned Judicial Officer Shri G.S.Sekhon. He,
however, stated that it was merely a request to expedite the
issue and nothing more.
Upon being enquired as to what prompted him to make
such a request on behalf of the litigant, he candidly conceded
that he knew the litigant involved. In
my considered opinion, it cannot be presumed that Shri
H.P.Singh would have made an innocent request of expediting
the matter, even if his plea is accepted. Besides, he had no
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 9
business to even make such a request, as this would amount to
an obstruction in the course of justice and thus, contemptuous
besides being reflective of a conduct unbecoming of a Judicial
Officer.
Shri H.P.Singh does not enjoy a good reputation as I
discovered in the face of numerous complaints by the litigants.
Two glaring instances also show him in poor light.
The President of the Bar Association, Phillaur Shri
Krishan Kumar Khattar and his son Shri Upesh Khattar along
with his family members are accused in a case registered vide
F.I.R. dated 28.06.2012 pertaining to the allegations of land
grab of a non-resident Indian. Challan was presented on
20.11.2012 against one of the accused Gandharv Sain in whose
favour a power of attorney was allegedly forged on the basis of
which a sale transaction was executed in favour of Shri Khattar.
A supplementary challan was submitted on 26.07.2013 against
Shri Khattar and his son. Pre-arrest bail was granted to them on
04.10.2013. A third supplementary challan was submitted
against Baljit Kaur and others on 20.02.2014 and charge was
framed against all the accused persons by the S.D.J.M.,
Nakodar upon which the accused person namely Subhash
Chander filed a Revision before the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar. The case was entrusted to Shri H.P.Singh,
A.D.J. who summoned the original case file and did not release
the same despite the request made by the learned trial Court
and as I have been informed, despite the fact that the District
Judge in his regular monthly meetings also requested the officer
to release the file.
The Revision was disposed of by the said Court on
20.12.2014.
He needs to explain why he summoned and
retained the original file delaying the proceedings a situation
advantageous to the accused a President of the Bar Association.
All this points out an irresponsible conduct by Shri
H.P.Singh, A.D.J. who retained the file till 20.1.2015.
One litigant also met to apprise me of a loss of file in
the Court of this very officer and it was alleged that he along
with his Ahlamad had got the file misplaced deliberately in
order to help the other side. An enquiry in this regard is going on
against the Ahlamad.
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 10
I would like to submit all these facts for the
consideration of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.”
6.1 The aforesaid note of the Administrative Judge was placed before
the then Acting Chief Justice who forwarded the same to the Vigilance
Disciplinary Committee (VDC). VDC in its meeting dated 21.01.2016 after
hearing the petitioner and being not satisfied with his reply recommended for
initiation of disciplinary proceedings for major penalty. Consequently, a
charge sheet dated 26.08.2016 was issued alleging the following charges:-
“1. That while you posted as Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, a case titled as "Kavita
Aggarwal Vs. Manu Aggarwal" was pending in the Court of
Sh. G.S. Sekhon, PCS, JMIC, Jalandhar. In order to favour
Sh. Manu Aggarwal i.e. Respondent no. 1 in the said case
you pressurized Sh. G.S. Sekhon, PCS, JMIC, Jalandhar, to
allow respondent no. 1 to operate bank locker and also
compelled him to make a request for the transfer of this case
from his Court to some other Court. As such you have
pressurized the officer subordinate to you and tried to
interfere in his judicial work. You have failed to keep honesty
and integrity as expected from a Judicial Officer and thereby
acted in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer.
2. That while you posted as Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, you dealt with a Criminal
Revision No. 9614 dated 12.3.2014 titled as "Subash
Chander Vs. State of Punjab". You vide orders dated
12.3.2014, while admitting the appeal in question,
requisitioned the record of lower Court and kept the same
with you despite request made by the trial court to return the
record vide letter No. 2233 dated 26.4.2014. You kept the
record of the case even after passing of judgment dated
20.12.2014 and did not return the record despite request
made by trial court vide letter no. 80 dated 6.1.2015. You
kept the record of trial court with you just to delay the
proceedings in a situation advantageous to the accused. By
doing so you have failed to perform your duty with utmost
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 11
devotion and misconducted yourself and have acted in a
manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.”
6.2 The said disciplinary proceedings were pending but were decided
not to be proceeded against with and the Employer in its discretion decided to
compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest.
7. It would be apt to reproduce the ACRs for the appraisal years
2014-15 and 2015-16 as follow:-
ACR OF THE YEAR-2014-15
1. Quantity of work: Unsatisfactory
(a) Conduct of
business in Court
and Office:
Satisfactory.
(b) Quality of
judgment:
Not up to the mark and needs
improvements and better
application.
2. Quantity of work: Average
3. Capacity of
management,
leadership and
team work:
Average
4. Inter-personal
relationship and
team work:
Has demonstrated a
propensity to interfere with
others functioning.
5. State of health: Apparently good.
6. Period under
observation of the
Administrative
Judge:
2014-2015
7. Integrity Credibility is seriously in
doubt for the reasons
contained in the note of the
undersigned dated 26.03.2015
which may be read in
conjunction with these
remarks.
8. General
assessment
regarding strength
and short-comings:
Come across as an unreliable
officer.
9. Grading C(Below Average)
Part III
Remarks of the
Administrative
Judge
Unreliable officer, with
questionable credibility.
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 12
ACR OF THE YEAR 2015-16
1. Quantity of work:
(a) Conduct of
business in Court
and Office:
Average
(b) Quality of
judgment:
Poor
2. Quantity of work: Reasonable
3. Capacity of
management,
leadership and
team work:
Average
4. Inter-personal
relationship and
team work:
Average
5. State of health: Good.
6. Period under
observation of the
Administrative
Judge:
2015-2016
7. Integrity Various complain ts
concerning his work and
conduct are pending. In the
case of Kavita Aggarwal vs.
Manu Aggarwal, COMA No.4
of 2015 chargesheet is being
issued for imposition of
major penalty. His integrity
needs close scrutiny. Not fit
to be retained in service.
8. General
assessment
regarding strength
and short-comings:
--
9. Grading C(Below Average)
(see Column No.7 above)
Part III
Remarks of the
Administrative
Judge
As above.
REGARDING ACRS OF THE YEARS 2014-15 & 2015-16
7.1 After the petitioner in his ACR for the year 2014-15 was awarded
adverse remarks including that of integrity doubtful in the following appraisal
year 2015-16, the then Administrative Judge of Jalandhar Sessions Division
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 13
made the following note while passing a judicial order in CRM-M No. 17248-
2015:-
“While hearing the anticipatory bail application filed
by the petitioner Jatinder Singh @ Jony bearing CRM-M-17248
of 2015 in a cross-case/DDR No. 22 dated 27.02.2014
registered under Sections 323,324,307 and 34 IPC at Police
Station Division No.2, Jalandhar, it prima - facie came to the
notice of this Court that the pre-arrest bail application moved
by petitioner Jatinder Singh @ Jony before the Sessions Court
at Jalandhar was adjourned 21 times without any effective
order being passed. The petitioner has referred to various
zimini orders reproduced in the petition which reveal that the
case was adjourned by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandha r
on several dates as police record was not produced. It has
further come to the notice of the Court that accused Vijay
Thapa is admittedly the main accused, who caused a datar
blow on the head of the complainant leading to a fracture
skull. After registration of FIR, though efforts were made by
the investigating agency to arrest accused Vijay Thapa, but he
managed to escape to Malaysia. Prima-facie finding serious
lapse on the part of the investigating agency, particularly when
the said accused was named in the aforesaid cross-version
case registered vide DDR No. 22 dated 27.2.2014, this Court
observed that the matter may require enquiry by an
independent agency/authority as police has been unable to
explain why main accused fled from the country. On the other
hand, learned State counsel, at the time of hearing of the
anticipatory bail application of petitioner Jatinder Singh @
Jony before this Court on July 24, 2015, submitted that
statement of Naib Court and MHC of concerned Police Station
had been recorded, according to which, no notice was received
from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar
regarding the bail application preferred by the petitioner. The
said case now stands adjourned for 14.08.2015.
In these circumstances, it is directed to the District
& Sessions Judge, Jalandhar to look into the matter and
submit the report on the bail application of petitioner Jatinder
Singh @ Jony, which remained pending for a long period, and
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 14
was adjourned without any justification even without passing
any effective order.”
7.2 District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar after examining the record
submitted his report dated 10.08.2015 which was placed before the then
Administrative Judge, who in turn interviewed the petitioner as well as the
other officer involved in the case.
7.3 When CRM-M No. 17248-2015 came up before anoth er Hon’ble
Judge of this Court on a subsequent date of hearing, the following orders were
passed:-
“It appears that officer adjourn the anticipatory bail
application twenty-one times. Petitioner was left with no option
but to approach this Court whereafter interim bail was granted.
The explanation of the officer was sought. He has stated as
follows:
It is respectfully submitted that bail application No.
5437 of 2014, date of institution 19.09.2014 titled Jatinder
Singh @ Johny Vs. Punjab State and bail application No. 233 of
2014 date of institution 13.01.2015 titled “Vijay Thapa Vs
Punjab State both arising out FIR No. 10 dated 23.01.2014,
under section 307/323/324/326/148/149 IPC of Police Station
Division No. 2, Jalandhar are pending before this Court. In both
the applications no order could be passed as police record was
not produced. It is respectfully submitted that I joined at
Jalandhar on 06.04.2015. Thereafter I remained on training
from 15.04.2015 to 16.05.2015. The file of the bail application
titled Jatinder Singh @ Johny Vs. Punjab State was put up
before me only on 10.04.2015, 13.04.2015, 27.05.2015 (IO was
away to Chandigarh) and 11.06.2015. On these dates record
was not produced. Similarly bail application titled Vijay Thapa
Vs Punjab State was put before me on 10.04.2015, 13.04.2015,
27.05.2015(IO was away to Chandigarh) and 11.06.2015. On
these dates arguments on bail application could not be heard as
police record was not produced. I have recently joined at
Jalandhar on promotion as Additional District & Sessions
Judge. Being new I could not pass effective orders calling for
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 15
police record. It is requested that lapse on my part in ensuring
produce of police record may be forgiven. I assure that in future
all production of police record may be forgiven. I assure that in
future all necessary measures will be taken, so that anticipatory
bail applications are not delayed for non-production of police
record”
The officer needs to improve his court working and
awareness of procedure. Matter be brought to the notice of the
Administrative Judge.”
7.4 After seeking further explanation and report from the concerned
District & Sessions Judge, the matter was again placed before the concerned
Administrative Judge who on 03.05.2016 found the explanation given by the
petitioner for prolonging the bail application to be not satisfactory. However,
to ascertain whether such delay was inadvertent or emanated from some
motive, the matter was referred to the VDC. VDC in its meeting dated
21.09.2016 after being apprised of the fact that disciplinary proceedings have
already been initiated against the petitioner for misconduct, pertaining to the
previous appraisal year, recommended to place the matter before the
Administrative Committee dealing with the issue of retaining the judicial
officers beyond the age of 55 years. Consequently, the Administrative
Committee in its meeting dated 22.02.2017 recommended that looking to the
overall record of the officer, it was in public interest not to retain the officer as
a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services and accordingly referred
the matter to the Full Court which in turn accepted the recommendation of the
Administrative Committee and resolved to withdraw judicial work from the
petitioner. Thereafter the matter was referred to Vigilance Disciplinary
Committee which in its meeting dated 20.03.2018 recommended that with
regard to disciplinary proceedings, the same be deferred for the time being in
view of the Full Court decision having accepted the proposal of the
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 16
Administrative Committee of not retaining the petitioner in service beyond the
age of 55 years.
8. REGARDING A.C.R OF THE YEAR 2016-17 :-
1. Quantity of work:
(a) Conduct of
business in Court
and Office:
V. Good
(b) Quality of
judgment:
Good
2. Quantity of work: Good
3. Capacity of
management,
leadership and
team work:
Good
4. Inter-personal
relationship and
team work:
V. Good
5. State of health: V.Good.
6. Period under
observation of the
Administrative
Judge:
01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017
7. Integrity No complaint received during
the period under assessment
8. General assessment
regarding strength
and short-comings:
Considering the remarks
recorded in the ACR for the
years 2014-2015 and 2015-
2016, working of this officer
was minutely
watched/monitored. Even
regular feedback was taken
from the District Judge.
During this period no
complaint was received
against him, which may
substantiate anything
against him about his
integrity. Though the officer
is slow in working, but has
acceptability in the Bar.
As per my assessment,
he is a hardworking officer.
9. Grading B Plus(Good)
Part III
Remarks of the
Administrative
Judge
As per Sr. No.8 of Part-II.
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 17
8.1 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon
the ACR of the petitioner recorded for the years 2016-17 to contend that over
all performance of the petitioner was categorized as B+ (Good) with remarks
of ‘Very Good’ in the columns of inter-personal relationship and team work
and State of health. In the column of general assessment, it was contended that
after a close watch kept on the petitioner in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the
feed back that was received from District & Sessions Judge was that there was
no complaint especially as regards integrity. However, it was observed that the
petitioner is slow in working but has acceptability in Bar being hard working
officer.
8.2 In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, assessment of the
performance, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner in the last so many years
of his entire service career, this Court has now to assess whether the decision
impugned herein of compulsorily retiring the petitioner in public interest was
legal and valid and was or not effected by any prejudice or malice.
8.3 The service profile of the petitioner from 1992 to 2017 reveals
that in the first nine years of his career right from 1992-93 to 1998-99, he was
categorized as only a satisfactory officer whereafter from 1999-2000 to 2013-
14, he was categorized as B+(Good) except 2010-11 when he was graded as
B (average).
8.4 It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner was
promoted on substantive basis into Punjab Superior Judicial Services in
November-2012 and therefore, the average/satisfactory grading awarded to
him prior to his promotion loose their sting and thus will not fall in the
category of legitimate cause which could have influenced the employer while
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 18
deciding the petitioner to be fit or unfit to be retained in service beyond the age
of 55 years.
8.5 Therefore, the material which require close scrutiny for deciding
as to whether the petitioner was a deadwood or not is the ACR gradings, his
performance, conduct and behaviour from 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and
2016-17. From the aforesaid material, the VDC for the first time on
21.09.2016 applied its mind to this aspect and resolved to refer the matter to
the Administrative Committee dealing with retention of judicial officers
beyond the age of 55 years. The aforesaid recommendation of the VDC was
approved by the then Chief Justice on 27.09.2016 which was then put up
before the Administrative Committee convened on 22.02.2017 where the
decision was taken to weed out the petitioner being a deadwood on attaining
the age of 55 years. This recommendation of the Administrative Committee
was confirmed by the Full Court on 06.03.2018.
8.6 Therefore, when the decision by the Administrative Committee
was taken after perusing the entire service profile of the petitioner with special
emphasis on the last few years including the years of 2014-15 and 2015-16 in
which he earned adverse remarks with integrity ‘doubtful’, the ACR of the
year 2016-17 with B+ (Good) grading was not in existence.
8.7 It is settled that even a single adverse entry in regard to integrity
can be sufficient to weed out an employee as a deadwood. After having gone
through the record and having heard the arguments extended by learned
counsel for the rival parties and having perused the material on record, the
element of mala fides or prejudices in the decision-making process of the
Administrative Committee or the Full Court appears to be conspicuously
missing. The decision to weed out the petitioner as a deadwood was based on
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 19
two glaring adverse remarks showing tainted integrity. Integrity is the most
important attribute in the service of a judicial officer. Slightest of doubt qua
integrity entitles the employer to assess the suitability for further retention in
service.
8.8 The petitioner has not alleged any mala fides against any
particular individual and therefore, this Court need not to go into the aspect of
mala fide.
9. This Court has perused all the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner but finds that these judgments relied upon revolve on
their own facts which are distinct than the factual matrix available in this case
and thus the ratio laid down by these decisions has no application or assistance
in this case.
10. This Court does not have any hesitation to hold that charge sheet
by which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and
which were held in abeyance by adopting the alleged shortcut method of
compulsorily retiring the petitioner at the age of 55 years in public interest,
cannot be categorized as a foundation behind the decision to weed out the
petitioner as deadwood but however can be categorized as a mere motive.
11. On the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion and the settled
position of law especially in regard to the discretion available to an employer
to decide on the question of declaring a particular employee to be deadwood or
not having been well settled by various decisions of the Apex Court, this Court
is of the considered view that no scope for interference is made out in the
impugned order which is accordingly upheld.
CWP No. 16249 of 2018 20
12. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
15.05.2025
ravinder
Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No
Whether reportable √Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....