http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14

PETITIONER:

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SARNAM SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/1999

BENCH:

S.Saghir Ahmad, D.P.Wadhwa,

JUDGMENT:

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

Leave granted.

Sarnam Singh (respondent No.1), who shall hereinafter

be referred to as respondent, was compulsorily retired from

service by order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the State

Government on the recommendation of the High Court which

itself, incidentally, is the appellant before us. This

Court in All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India,

(1992) 1 SCC 119, had issued certain directions for

improvement of the service conditions of the members of the

subordinate judiciary in the country. The Union of India

and various States thereafter filed a Review Petition which

was considered and disposed of by this Court on August 24,

1993 by Judgment since reported as All India Judges'

Association and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1993) 4

SCC 288. It may be pointed out that by the earlier Judgment

in the main case of All India Judges' Association (supra),

one of the directions related to the enhancement of

superannuation age of all the subordinate Judicial Officers

upto 60 years. This question was also considered in the

Review Petition and while rejecting the contention of the

Union of India and other States that age of retirement

should not be enhanced to 60 years, this Court, inter alia,

observed as under:-

"30. There is, however, one aspect we should

emphasise here. To that extent the direction contained in

the main judgment under review shall stand modified. The

benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years,

shall not be available automatically to all judicial

officers irrespective of their past record of service and

evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system.

The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion

of the respective High Courts, have a potential for

continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall

for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful

integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14

continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by

appropriate Committees of Judges of the respective High

Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the

High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of

the Judicial officer's past record of service, character

rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters.

31. The High Court should undertake and complete the

exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58

years well within time by following the procedure for

compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service

Rules applicable to the judicial officers. Those who will

not be found fit and eligibile by this standard should not

be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should

be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the

said procedure for compulsory retirement. The exercise

should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58

years even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation

was less than 58 years. It is necessary to make it clear

that this assessment is for the purpose of finding out the

suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of

the benefit of the increased age of superannuation from 58

years to 60 years. It is in addition to the assessment to

be undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory

retirement at the earlier stage/s under the respective

Service Rules."

Pursuant to the above directions, the High Courts, all

over the country, before allowing Officers of the

subordinate judiciary to continue in service upto the age of

60 years, scrutinised the work, conduct and performance of

all Officers who were about to attain the age of 58 years,

to determine whether they were fit to be allowed an

extension in service or were fit to be compulsorily retired.

This scrutiny was done in accordance with the procedure laid

down by the respective Service Rules relating to compulsory

retirement as applicable to the Judicial Officers.

This exercise was done in the case of respondent also

who was compulsorily retired from service principally on

account of the adverse remark given by the then Inspecting

Judge who had made a surprise inspection of the Moradabad

Judgeship on April 18, 1995, in cognito, which was followed

by the annual inspection by the Inspecting Judge (Mr.Justice

R.B. Mehrotra) from 22nd May to 28th May, 1995. A

reference to the surprise inspection as also to the regular

inspection shall be made later as we intend to consider a

more important aspect first on which the whole appeal can be

disposed of finally.

The principal contention urged by Mr. P.P. Rao,

learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the

respondent is that pursuant to the directions issued by this

Court in its Judgment in All India Judges' Association vs.

Union of India and others, (1992) 1 SCC 119, the U.P.

Government framed new Rules, namely, U.P. Judicial Officers

(Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 which were

notified on 20.10.1992 by which the age of retirement of the

Judicial Officers was raised from 58 years to 60 years. It

is contended that since the State Government itself had

framed new Rules by which the age of retirement was raised

from 58 years to 60 years, the age of retirement fixed under

Fundamental Rule 56, contained in Financial Hand Book,

Volume II, Part 2 to 4, would not be applicable to the

Judicial Officers as it is specifically provided in the new

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14

Rules that they shall have effect notwithstanding anything

to the contrary contained in Rule 56 of the Fundamental

Rules. Mr. P.P. Rao contends that the age of retirement

having been raised from 58 years to 60 years, the respondent

had a right to continue in service till the age of 60 years

and the rule of scrutiny envisaged by this Court in its

Judgment dated August 24, 1993 [(1993) 4 SCC 288] would not

be applicable.

Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing

on behalf of the High Court has, on the contrary, contended

that though the State Government had made a specific Rule by

which the age of retirement of Judicial Officers was raised

from 58 years to 60 years, a scrutiny had still to be done

to find out their suitability to continue till the age of 60

years in terms of the directions issued by this Court which

had specifically provided that continuance upto the age of

60 years would not be automatic and only those Officers who

are found suitable would alone be allowed the benefit of

extension. It is further submitted that the directions

issued by this Court have to be read as supplemental to the

Rules already made by the State Government. Regarding the

overriding provision under the Rules, it is submitted by Mr.

Rakesh Dwivedi that the new Rules override all other earlier

rules relating to the age of retirement of Judicial Officers

but do not intend to override the directions issued by this

Court in All India Judges Association's case, (1992) 1 SCC

119.

The direction relating to the age of retirement in the

All India Judges Association's case, (1992) 1 SCC 119, was

to the following effect :

"(iii) Retirement age of judicial officers be raised

to 60 years and appropriate steps are to be taken by

December 31, 1992."

Acting upon these directions, the State Govt. framed

the U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation)

Rules, 1992, under Article 309 of the Constitution. They

came into force on October 20, 1992. Rules 2 and 4 of the

aforesaid Rules which are relevant for the present case are

quoted below :

"2. Overriding effect -- The provisions of these

Rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the

contrary contained in Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental

Rules, contained in the Financial Hand Book Volume II Parts

2 to 4 or any other Rules made by the Governor under the

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or orders, for

the time being in force.

4. Retirement -- A Judicial Officer shall retire from

service on superannuation in the afternoon of the last day

of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years."

The above Rules indicate that the age of

superannuation of Judicial Officers was fixed at 60 years.

It was also specifically provided that these Rules would

have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14

provided that the age of superannuation of a Govt. servant

would be 58 years. All Judicial Officers working in the

subordinate courts are, undoubtedly, Govt. servants and

like all other Govt. servants, they retired from service on

attaining the age of 58 years in terms of Rule 56 of the

Fundamental Rules. But on account of the directions issued

by this Court in the All India Judges Association's case

(1992) 1 SCC 119, the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, as pointed

out earlier, framed new Rules specially for the Judicial

Officers and provided that their age of retirement would be

60 years. In order to give effect to the new Rules, it was

specifically provided that these Rules would have effect

notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in

Fundamental Rule 56. The directions issued by this Court

were thus fully implemented and the State Govt., by bringing

out new Rules, and that too with effect from October 20,

1992, acted within the time limit fixed by this Court. The

age of superannuation thus having been raised from 58 years

to 60 years, all Judicial Officers in the State would retire

on attaining the age of 60 years and not earlier.

We may now examine the contention of Mr. Rakesh

Dwivedi that before allowing them to continue in service for

another two years, that is from 58 to 60 years, there should

have been a scrutiny of their service record and only those

who were found suitable for continuance in service alone

should have been given that benefit in terms of the

directions issued by this Court in the Review Judgment

[(1993) 4 SCC 288].

This Court, while issuing directions for raising the

age of superannuation of Judicial Officers from 58 to 60

years had fixed a time limit within which appropriate action

was to be taken by the State Governments. It was provided

that appropriate steps in that direction may be taken by

December 31, 1992. Instead of complying with those

directions, many of the States, including the Union of India

filed Review Petitions in which various contentions were

raised for recalling the earlier direction for raising the

age of superannuation. The contentions raised by the State

Governments as also by the Union of India were not accepted

and it was provided that the age of superannuation of

Judicial Officers would be 60 years. Since all the State

Governments had not, by that time, made a statutory rule to

give effect to the directions of this Court, it was provided

that the benefit of extension in the age of superannuation

would be available to those officers only who, in the

opinion of the High Court, had meticulous service record and

were officers of integrity. This benefit, it was further

provided, was not intended to serve as a "windfall" for

officers of doubtful integrity, reputation or utility. It

was left to the High Courts to consider the work, conduct

and performance of the Judicial Officers to assess their

merit and to decide whether they were fit to continue in

service beyond 58 and upto the age of 60 years. These

directions were qualified by the following words :

"The directions issued are mere aids and incidental to

and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a

transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is

evolved."

These observations indicate that the procedure

indicated by this Court for evaluating the work, performance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14

and conduct of Judicial Officers, before allowing them to

continue in service upto the age of 60 years, was evolved as

a temporary measure and was not to be adopted as a permanent

feature. The choice was thus left to the Appointing

Authority. If the Appointing Authority itself had made

necessary Service Rules extending the age of retirement, the

above procedure was to be given up as the Officers would

continue in service in accordance with the Service Rules

made by the Appointing Authority in the respective States.

If it was not done, then the Judicial Officers were to

continue in service till the age of 60 years in accordance

with the directions of this Court in the earlier case,

provided the Officers, on a scrutiny of their service

records, in accordance with the directions issued in the

Review Petition, were found suitable for the benefit of

extended service.

As pointed out above, the State Govt., acting upon the

directions of this Court in the earlier case [(1992) 1 SCC

119], made new Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution,

and that too within the time fixed by this Court, by which

the age of retirement of all Judicial Officers was raised

from 58 to 60 years. In view of these Rules, which also had

the overriding effect over F.R. 56, the Judicial Officers

in the State of U.P. became entitled to continue in service

upto the age of 60 years. The directions of this Court for

scrutiny of their service records before allowing them to

continue in service beyond 58 years, being of a transitory

character, yielded place to the new Rules made by the State

Govt. under Article 309 of the Constitution and, therefore,

it was no longer incumbent upon the High Court to resort to

the procedure of scrutiny of the service records of all

Judicial Officers before allowing them the benefit of

extension in the age of retirement. The contention of Mr.

Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the High Court, that the directions of this Court about

the scrutiny of the service record should be read as

supplemental to the new Service Rules cannot be accepted as

this Court itself had indicated clearly that the directions

were intended to serve as a "transitional measure".

A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rajat Baran Roy &

Ors. vs. State of W.B. & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 235, relating

to the Judicial Service of the State of West Bengal, has

taken a similar view and has held that if a Rule is made by

the State Govt. extending the age of retirement of the

Judicial Officers, the directions of this Court in the

Review Petition for scrutiny of the service record would not

be applicable as the Judicial Officers, by virtue of the new

Rule, would continue upto the age of superannuation fixed

under the new Rule.

In the instant case, the service record of the

respondent was scrutinised by the High Court at the time

when he was completing 58 years of age to decide whether he

was fit to be continued in service upto the age of 60 years.

This exercise was undertaken by the High Court in accordance

with the directions issued by this Court in the Review

Petition. The High Court overlooked the vital fact that the

new Rules already made by the State Government under Article

309 of the Constitution provided specifically that the

Judicial Officers would retire on attaining the age of 60

years. That being so, it was no longer necessary for the

High Court to have scrutinised the service record at that

stage. The respondent, in view of the new Rules, was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14

entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years.

The order of compulsory retirement passed by the State Govt.

on the recommendation of the High Court was wholly

erroneous.

The writ petition filed by the respondent, as pointed

out earlier, has been allowed by the High Court on the

judicial side, on the ground that the order of compulsory

retirement passed on the recommendation of the High Court

was based on no material and was, therefore, erroneous. In

view of the fact that we have already found above that the

respondent had a right to continue in service upto the age

of 60 years, there does not appear to be any need to enter

into the scrutiny of the reasoning adopted by the High Court

for setting aside the order of compulsory retirement as we

are also of the view that the order of compulsory retirement

was bad, though for different reasons. But, looking to the

importance of the matter, particularly the adverse entries

recorded in the character roll of the respondent by the

Inspecting Judge, we would rather dispose of that issue as

well.

Chapter III of the Rules of Court, 1952, (as amended

upto 1.8.1994) made by the Allahabad High Court, deals with

the Executive & Administrative Business of the Court. It

provides for Inspecting Judges and Administrative Committee.

The Rule relating to "Inspecting Judges" provides as under :

"Inspecting Judge

The Chief Justice shall nominate and assign one

sessions division to each Hon'ble Judge as Inspecting Judge

of that division for a period of one year. In a given

situation, however, the Chief Justice may assign more than

one sessions divisions to one Inspecting Judge and more than

one Inspecting Judges to hold the charge of one sessions

division.

(a) In case of retirement, resignation, refusal or

death of any Inspecting Judge, another Hon. Judge shall be

nominated by the Chief Justice.

(b) Inspecting Judge shall proceed for inspection in

consultation with the Chief Justice. The Inspecting Judge

will not ordinarily devote more than five working days for

annual inspections."

The Rule relating to "Administrative Committee"

provides as under :

"Administrative Committee

There shall be a committee called the Administrative

Committee composed of the Chief Justice, two seniormost

Judges and six Judges to be nominated by the Chief Justice.

(a) The two senior most Judges shall be permanent

members and six Judges shall be nominated as members by the

Chief Justice for a term of three years.

(b) The Chief Justice and in his absence the

seniormost member of the Committee shall preside over its

meetings.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14

(c) In the case of retirement, resignation, refusal or

death of any member of the committee, another Judge shall be

nominated by the Chief Justice in his place.

(d) In the event of a member being temporarily absent

on leave or otherwise, it will be open to the Chief Justice

to assign his work to any other Judge.

(e) Each member of the committee shall discharge such

functions, dispose of such executive and administrative

business, as may be allocated to him by the Chief Justice."

"Matters" which are within the jurisdiction of the

Inspecting Judge are as under :

"Matters for Inspecting Judges

(1) Review of Judicial work of subordinate Courts,

tribunals, district consumer forums and all other special

courts and control of their working including inspection

thereof, to record entries in the character rolls of the

officers posted in the division assigned to the Inspecting

Judge.

(2) Perusal of returns, calendars, evaluation of

inspection reports made by the presiding officers in respect

of their own offices, audit reports received from those

courts, tribunals etc. and to make orders thereon.

(3) Any adverse remarks or strictures made by

Inspecting Judge about Judicial work, conduct or integrity

of any officer under his charge will be communicated to the

officer concerned, who may make his representations, if any,

within a month and the same shall be placed before the

Administrative Committee for consideration and decision.

(4) Grant of earned leave to officers posted in the

sessions division under the charge of the Inspecting Judge.

(5) Grant of casual leave (including special casual

leave) and permission to leave headquarters to the District

and Sessions Judge, Presiding Officers of the tribunals and

special Courts etc. howsoever designated.

(6) Disposal of appeal against orders of punishment

imposed on and representations etc. of the employees of the

subordinate Courts."

The relevant portion relating to the matters within

the jurisdiction of the "Administrative Committee" is

reproduced below :

"Matters for the Administrative Committee

1 to 15. .........

16. Decision on the reports of the Inspecting Judge

including annual confidential remarks recorded by him in

respect of an officer in his charge."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14

The High Court has also prescribed "Self Assessment

Forms" which are filled up by the Judicial Officers and are

sent to the District Judges. The High Court has also issued

Circular Letters laying down the appropriate guidelines and

instructions for the District Judges to record the Annual

Character Roll entries. In Circular Letter No. C-54/71

dated 16th April, 1971, it is provided, inter alia, as under

:

"Annual remarks recorded by the District Judges should

give a correct and full picture of the work, conduct and

reputation of the officers. In case annual remarks do not

properly assess the work of the officers, administrative

lapse on the part of the District Judge concerned would be

presumed."

In Circular Letter No. 17/78 dated 2nd February,

1978, it is indicated as under :

"In evaluating the judicial work of an officer, the

number of his judgments, orders reversed or modified in

appeal or revision will not be taken into account. The

assessment of judicial work of an officer will be asked on

the quality of his judgments or orders and not on the result

of the appeals or revisions. Henceforth, the work of an

officer will be assessed on the basis of quality of his

judgments or orders and not on the basis of the number of

judgments or orders reversed or modified in appeal or

revision."

Vide Circular Letter Nos. C-10/85 and C-14/89 dated

22nd March, 1985 and 10th March, 1989, respectively, it was

emphasised that :

"The District Judge shall ensure that the following

instructions as contained in various Circular Letters issued

by the Court from time to time are followed strictly in

recording the annual remarks in respect of the judicial

officers:

(a) The annual remarks should be recorded in respect

of all the officers whose work and conduct was seen for

three months or more during the year.

(b) Even if an officer has worked at the station for

period of less than three months during the year, the

District Judge should send the figures of his disposal for

that part of the year, so that his full figures of disposal

during the whole year may be worked out."

The Inspecting Judges, as set out in the Rules, are

nominated by the Chief Justice and a particular sessions

division is assigned to them. The Rules also provide that

the Chief Justice may assign more than one sessions

divisions to one Inspecting Judge or for one sessions

division, he may nominate more than one Inspecting Judges.

The Rules visualise that the Inspecting Judge will be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14

appointed by the Chief Justice strictly in the interest of

administration of justice and the Chief Justice, while

appointing an Inspecting Judge for a particular sessions

division or assigning more than one sessions divisions to

one Inspecting Judge or, for that matter, appointing two

Inspecting Judges for one sessions division, will be guided

by relevant factors pertaining to the proper and smooth

running of the administration so that the High Court may

effectively exercise its power of control over the

subordinate judiciary as contemplated by Article 235 of the

Constitution. Personal liking for a particular sessions

division or convenience of the Judge will not be a relevant

factor for his appointment as an Inspecting Judge.

The Inspecting Judge, according to Rules of Court,

1952, will proceed to inspect the sessions division assigned

to him only in consultation with the Chief Justice and will

not ordinarily devote more than five working days for annual

inspection. The time limit has been fixed purposely so that

the judicial work in the High Court, which is of prime

importance, may not suffer. This philosophy leads to the

conclusion that the Inspecting Judge would not normally

sacrifice the working days in the High Court at the cost of

their visit to the Districts. The Rules set out the matters

which are within the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Judge

and those which are within the jurisdiction of the

Administrative Committee. According to the scheme set out

in the Rules as also various circular letters issued by the

High Court from time to time, it appears that annual remarks

would be recorded by the District Judges who would give a

correct and full picture of the work, conduct and reputation

of the Officers. The guidelines on the basis of which

annual remark would be given have also been laid down by the

High Court in the circular letters issued from time to time.

The High Court, thereafter, records the Character Roll

entry.

Mr. Justice R.B. Mehrotra, who has since retired,

was the Inspecting Judge of the Moradabad Judgeship at the

relevant time. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of

the appellant in the writ petition while it was pending in

the High Court, regarding which it is erroneously mentioned

by the Division Bench that it was not filed, it has been

stated, inter alia, as under :

"7. That the then Inspecting Judge, Moradabad, Hon.

Mr. Justice R.B. Mehrotra, sent a D.O. Letter dated

20.4.95 addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice stating

therein that His Lordship made a surprise visit to District

Judgeship of Moradabad on 18.4.1995. His lordship went

around Civil Court compound in cognito, made queries from

litigants and met several Advocates without disclosing his

lordship's identity. The enquiries made by his lordship

from litigants and Advocates without knowing lordship's

identity revealed that petitioner and four other Judicial

Officers whose names mentioned in the D.O. letter

dt.20.4.1995 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Mehrotra command

stinking reputation of being corrupt. Thereafter, Hon'ble

the Inspecting Judge made queries from District Judge

regarding stinking reputation of being corrupt in respect of

the officer. The District Judge has confirmed that all the

officers whose names mentioned in the instant D.O. Letter

of Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge are having a very bad

reputation of being corrupt Judicial Officers. The District

Judge has expressed his regrets for not having brought to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14

the aforesaid facts to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court.

His Lordship was strongly of the opinion that all the

officers whose name mentioned in the D.O. letter of

Inspecting Judge, Moradabad, who had stinking reputation

should be transferred and he be given punishment posting to

far-fetched stations.

After dictation of the aforesaid report by Hon'ble the

Inspecting Judge, Moradabad Session, a Confidential report

from District Judge, Moradabad was received by his lordship

and the same were also sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for

his lordship's kind perusal and orders. The District Judge

in his D.O. letter dated 20.4.95 has informed the Hon'ble

the Inspecting Judge in respect of the petitioner that

though there is no complaint against Sri Sarnam Singh

(petitioner), Special Judge (Essential Commodities),

Moradabad, he also has connections with the said a cocous of

lawyers and public-men. His reputation is also very bad.

The District Judge had also requested to his lordship

to transfer the officer whose names mentioned in his report

(including petitioner) from this Judgeship immediately so

that pubic confidence in judiciary may be restored and

judicial discipline be maintained in the Judgeship.

Under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice these

officers including the petitioner have been transferred.

The petitioner was transferred from Moradabad to Aligarh

vide Court's notification No. C-304/DR(S)/1995 dated

29.5.1995."

It was further stated as under :

"8. That thereafter Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B.

Mehrotra, the Inspecting Judge, Moradabad, made annual

Inspection of this judgeship and submitted his report to the

Court on 16.10.1995. It is apparent from Inspection Note

that the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge also inspected the

court of Special Judge (ECA) Moradabad and at that time the

petitioner was the Presiding Officer of that Court. In his

Inspection Note Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge had made the

assessment of Judicial performance of the petitioner.

Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge had made observation that he

had seen the file of 13 Sessions Trials and 6 bail

Applications decided by him in the month of August, 1994.

In all these Sessions Trials the accused had been acquitted.

In the six Sessions Trials the accused had been acquitted on

the ground that prosecution witnesses turned hostile. In

Sessions Trial No. 119/89 the accused had been acquitted

u/s 399/402 IPC and section 25 Arms Act. The Hon'ble the

Inspecting Judge after perusal of judgment in the instant

case has observed that judgment is sketchy and no proper

reason had been recorded discarding the prosecution

witnesses.

In Bail Application No. 1980/94 bail had been granted

in case of fire arm injury u/s 302 IPC on the ground that 2

persons fired whereas injury found on person of the deceased

was only one. Even assuming that bullet fired by the other

person did not hit the deceased admittedly the allegation is

that both accused had fired with the intention to kill the

deceased who was actually killed. Hon'ble the Inspecting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14

Judge observed that there was absolutely no justification of

granting bail on the aforesaid ground.

In Bail Application No. 187/95, bail had been granted

by referring that there was a Judgment of Justice Palok.

Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge observed that there was no way

of quoting precedent. The reference of judgment should have

been mentioned if the Judge wanted to rely on decision of

this Court. Mr. Justice Palok Basu delivered many

judgments and on which judgment petitioner relied should

have also been indicated in the order.

Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge likewise in Bail

Application No. 3241/94 has also observed that bail had

been granted on the basis of parity. No reference has been

mentioned in the order that who was co-accused, who had been

granted bail, what was the role assigned to him and what was

the role assigned to the applicant. Hon'ble the Inspecting

Judge on persual of orders passed in the aforesaid bail

applications has observed that they are also sketchy. The

judicial performance of the petitioner is assessed to be

poor and unsatisfactory.

9. That the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge (Hon'ble Mr.

Justice R.B. Mehrotra) while giving annual remarks to the

petitioner for 1994-95 had recorded that the officer enjoyed

a stinkingly bad reputation as revealed in his lordship's

Surprise Inspection in cognito dated 18th April, 1995. The

assessment of judicial performance of the petitioner was

adjudged as poor and unsatisfactory. The petitioner made

representation dated 26.08.1996 to the Court against the

aforesaid adverse remarks and same was duly considered and

rejected by the Court. The petitioner was informed

accordingly through the District Judge, Aligarh, vide

Court's D.O. No. C-189/CF(A)/97, dated 6.3.1997.

10. That during his surprise Inspection, Hon'ble

Inspecting Judge also contacted various sections of lawyers,

a good number of lawyers were opposed to strike and were

appearing in Court but due to strike the work by and large

remained paralysed for one and half months and only urgent

bail applications were being attended by District Judge and

other officers to whom bail applications were transferred.

His lordship tried to persuade the Lawyers to withdraw the

strike so that their grievances if any may be looked in it.

His lordship was given to understand by section of lawyers

supporting the strike that strike would be called of."

The original service record of the respondent was

placed before us which reveals that respondent, at no time,

was given any adverse remarks during the entire tenure of

his service. The High Court had itself, while disposing of

the writ petition, scrutinised the

service record of the respondent and observed as under

:

"It appears that petitioner joined, as already stated,

U.P. Higher Judicial Service on 23.4.1984. He was posted

as Additional District Judge Moradabad from June, 1992 under

Sri Tej Shankar, the then District Judge, Moradabad, who was

later on elevated to the Bench. He was also posted under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14

Sri Bhagwandin, the then Distt. Judge Moradabad who also

was elevated to the Bench later on. It may be stated that

the petitioner was posted with (three) Distt. Judges who

were later on elevated to the Bench namely, Sri N.S.Gupta,

Sri Bhagwandin and Sri Tej Shankar, and according to

petitioner there was no complaint to all those 3 (three) the

then District Judges against his work and conduct."

It was further observed by the High Court as under :

"It may be mentioned that in the year 1984-85 the then

Administrative Judge Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.N. Mithal gave

remark that petitioners relations with members of the Bar

are reported to be good, the District Judge rated the

officer as good and the officer was transferred on

administrative grounds from Etawah. In the year 1985-86 the

same Administrative Judge has certified integrity of the

petitioner and has given remark that the officer took pains

to dispose of old Sessions Trials and Special cases under

the Dacoity Affected Areas Act and his judgments are

properly written and expressed in good language.

In the year 1986-87 there is no adverse entry against

the petitioner. There is remark that he has taken interest

in disposal of old cases both Civil and Criminal. His

judgments on facts and law are sound, well reasoned and

expressed in good language. The officer has good control

over his office and possesses administrative capacity and

tact. Relations with the members of the Bar are cordial.

On overall assessment Sri P.K. Jain the then District Judge

(subsequently elevated to the Bench) had rated the

petitioner to be good officer. In the year 1987-88 more or

less the entry is similar, to that of 1986-87.

In the year 1988-89 the entry of the petitioner is

recorded by Sri N.S. Gupta, the then District Judge

(subsequently elevated to the Bench). He has given remark

to the petitioner that the integrity of the officer is

beyond doubt, judgments on facts and law are sound, well

reasoned and expressed in good language and on over all

assessment the officer has been rated as good.

In the year 1988-89 good entry has been given to

petitioner by the then District Judge Sri P.P. Gupta and in

the year 1990-91 also the petitioner has been given good

entries, and his integrity has been certified. More or less

similar entry is awarded to petitioner in the year 1991-92.

In the year 1992-93 Sri Tej Shankar the then District Judge

Moradabad (subsequently elevated to the Bench) has given

good entry to the petitioner and his integrity is stated to

be beyond doubt. Similar entry has been given by Sri

Bhagwan Din the then District Judge (subsequently elevated

to the Bench) in the year 1993-94. Similarly in the year

1994-95 Sri Bhagwan Din the then District Judge Moradabad

has stated that the integrity of the officer was beyond

doubt and on overall assessment the officer was rated as

good, before the visit of Hon'ble the then Inspecting Judge.

We have perused the entire service record of the

petitioner and there is nothing adverse against him."

The High Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider

various aspects of the matter, including the fact that at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14

the time when Mr. Justice R.B. Mehrotra made a surprise

Inspection of the Moradabad Judgeship, the lawyers were on

strike, and ultimately recorded a finding that the impugned

adverse entry was unjustified, arbitrary and based on non-

existent facts and was, therefore, liable to quashed. We

uphold the findings of the High Court, but we do not

subscribe to the view that before an adverse entry was

recorded in the Character Roll, an opportunity of hearing

was, by any principle, required to be given to the

respondent. [See: Major General I.P.S. Dewan vs. Union

of India & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 383, in which R.L. Butail vs.

Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 876 = (1971) 2 SCR 55 has been

followed.] The decision of this Court in Sukhdeo vs.

Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Anr. relied

upon by the respondent regarding Adverse Remarks in the

service record cannot be pressed into aid as in that case it

was held that Adverse Remarks suffered from inconsistency

and lack of bona fides. We may also point out that the High

Court in its judgment was wrong in observing that no

counter-affidavit on behalf of the appellant was filed as

counter-affidavits both on behalf of the State Govt. as

also on behalf of the appellant were filed at the stage of

writ petition, copies whereof have been placed before us.

The role of Inspecting Judges and the manner in which

they are to assess the work of the Judicial Officers were

considered by this Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana

through R.G. vs. Ishwar Chand Jain and Another JT 1999 (3)

SC 266, in which one of us (Brother Wadhwa, J.), speaking

for the Court, said :

"Since late this Court is watching the spectre of

either judicial officers or the High Courts coming to this

Court when there is an order pre-maturely retiring a

judicial officer. Under Article 235 of the Constitution

High Court exercises complete control over subordinate

courts which include District Courts. Inspection of the

subordinate courts is one of the most important functions

which High Court performs for control over the subordinate

courts. Object of such inspection is for the purpose of

assessment of the work performed by the subordinate judge,

his capability, integrity and competency. Since judges are

human beings and also prone to all the human failings,

inspection provides an opportunity for pointing out mistakes

so that they are avoided in future and deficiencies, if any,

in the working of the subordinate court, remedied.

Inspection should act as a catalyst in inspiring subordinate

judges to give best results. They should feel a sense of

achievement. They need encouragement. They work under

great stress and man the courts while working under great

discomfort and hardships. A satisfactory judicial system

depends largely on the satisfactory functioning of courts at

grass root level. Remarks recorded by the inspecting judge

are normally endorsed by the Full Court and become part of

the Annual Confidential Reports and are foundations on which

the career of a judicial officer is made or marred.

Inspection of subordinate court is thus of vital importance.

It has to be both effective and productive. It can be so

only if it is well regulated and is workman like.

Inspection of subordinate courts is not a one day or an hour

or few minutes affair. It has to go on all the year round

by monitoring the work of the court by the inspecting judge.

The casual inspection can hardly be beneficial to a judicial

system. It does more harms than good. As noticed in the

case of R. Rajiah (JT 1988 (2) SC 567) there could be ill

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14

conceived or motivated complaints. Rumour mongering is to

be avoided at all costs as it seriously jeopardizes the

efficient working of the subordinate courts."

These are extremely important observations and

constitute important guidelines for assessing the work of a

Judicial Officer. These observations also indicate the

attitude with which the Inspecting Judge should objectively

consider the work and conduct of the Judicial Officers who

sometimes have to work under difficult and trying

circumstances. The same views were earlier expressed in

State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Kashi Nath Kher & Ors.

(1996) 8 SCC 762 = AIR 1996 SC 1328. [See also : Union of

India vs. N.R. Banerjee (1997) 9 SCC 287; State of Uttar

Pradesh vs. Yamuna Shanker Mishra (1997) 4 SCC 7 as also

Swatantra Singh vs. State of Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 14 = AIR

1997 SC 2105 on the question as to what precisely is the

object and purpose of writing Annual Confidential Report.]

We would conclude the discussion by referring to the

observations of this Court in M.S.Bindra vs. Union of

India, JT 1998 (6) SC 34 = (1998) 7 SCC 310, which are as

under :

"To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful

integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere

hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would

reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable

man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly

sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There

must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man

to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then

there is justification to ram an officer with the label

"doubtful integrity".

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit

in this appeal which is dismissed, but without any order as

to costs.