HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA Vs. RAJIV JAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent in WP(C) No.970/14 is the appellant herein. The writ petition is filed by the 1st respondent herein inter alia seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under:- The petitioner joined service as a Munsiff-Magistrate on 21/10/2002. The issue which is the subject matter of the case happened while the petitioner was working as Munsiff-Magistrate at Androth effective from 2/06/2010. At the relevant time, 2nd respondent was the District Judge. He requested for repatriation and he was posted as Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kunnamangalam as per order dated 15/5/2011. He submitted a self appraisal for the year 2010 on 25/6/2011 as Ext.P16. The 2nd respondent called upon him to give details of contested case as per Ext.P17 dated 19/7/2011. Since he was already repatriated, he obtained the details from the Bench Clerk at Androth Court and he submitted his explanation as Ext.P20. It is submitted that later he was communicated by Ext.P21 letter dated 18/1/2012 annexing a photocopy of Part III of the confidential report containing certain adverse remarks against him by the 2nd respondent. According to him, such remarks contained in Ext.P21 is illegal and factually unsustainable. He sought for an attested or authenticated copy as per Ext.P22 letter dated 28/2/2012 which was rejected as per Ext.P23 dated 9/3/2012. He again made a representation for unattested copy of Ext.P21 as per Ext.P24 dated 19/4/2012. He was personally heard by the learned High Court Judge having administrative jurisdiction over Lakshadweep on 10/10/2012. Nothing was heard in the matter for quite a long time. In the meantime, the first respondent/appellant by Ext.P25 letter dated 19/3/2013 asked him to sent a letter to the 2nd respondent tendering apology for his conduct. By Ext.P26 dated 6/4/2013, he requested the appellant to point out the wrong committed by him in order to tender apology. Ext.P26 was rejected as per Ext.P27 letter dated 10/5/2013. After receiving Ext.P27, he submitted letter dated 25/5/2013 (Ext.P28) expressing apology which was also communicated to the appellant and a request was made, not to record the same in his service book. Ext.P29 is the letter dated 25/5/2013 sent to the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) of this Court. Subsequently, the decision of the Administrative Committee of the High Court was communicated to him by which it was indicated that the High Court had rejected Ext.P24. Ext.P30 is the said office memorandum dated 18/6/2013. He also sought for review of the said decision by another representation dated 9/7/2013 to the first respondent/appellant which also came to be rejected as per Ext.P33 dated 28/12/2013. He further submits that his contemporaries and juniors have been granted higher grade under 2nd ACP on 18/12/2013 as per order dated 2/1/2014 of the first respondent/appellant and he is overlooked only on account of the adverse remarks. He therefore sought for the reliefs aforesaid inter alia contending that the orders are illegal and ultra vires. Reference is also made in the petition to G.O.(P).No.344 dated 22/8/1966 and it is contended that it is mandatory for the officers to observe the subordinates under his control closely and provide guidance wherever necessary. In so far as no such guidance had been given by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner, and it is not recorded anywhere, the adverse entry is per se illegal. He also tried to explain the adverse remarks which had been indicated in Ext.P21, and had alleged malice against the Reporting Authority. It is further contended that the purpose of making adverse remarks in the confidential report of an officer is to give him a chance to improve his work and conduct. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his work did not warrant any adverse entry against him and therefore there is no reason why the adverse entries should be a blemish on his service record and deprive him of the future benefits including granting of higher grade.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is inter alia contended that though petitioner was relieved from duty on 17/05/2010 with a direction to report at Androth within 10 days, he joined only on 2/6/2010. The adverse remarks entered into by the 2nd respondent was considered by the Judge-in-charge as well as the Administrative Committee. They have considered the reason behind the adverse entries with respect to all relevant materials and the same was confirmed. It is only to get over the adverse entry made in the ACR that he was given two chances to render apology. It was an opportunity given to him by the Judgein-charge so that no further action could be taken in the matter. On factual basis, the appellant had explained each and every point substantiating the entries in the ACR. It is submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner was placed before the Administrative Committee, but the Administrative Committee headed by the the Honourable the Chief Justice in its meeting held on 18/12/2013 resolved to reject the review petition and declined to grant the Assured Career Progression (ACP) II scales to the petitioner on account of the adverse remarks in his confidential report. It is submitted that such a decision was taken by the Committee as a corrective measure and to discourage repetition of such mistakes by the petitioner in future. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit explaining the factual matters involved in the allegations and reiterating the contentions urged by him.