ISHWAR DUTT Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India for quashing adverse inspection remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2006-07, conveyed vide Memo No.543/RHC(1) dtd. 19/7/2007 (Annexure P1) and the rejection of the representation dtd. 28/1/2011 (Annexure P6) sic (date of representation is 5/9/2007) as well as quashing the order dtd. 30/1/2013 (Annexure P21) and the order dtd. 19/2/2014, conveyed vide letter dtd. 22/4/2014 (Annexure P23 colly), whereby the judicial work of the petitioner was withdrawn and consequential proceedings have been initiated.

(2.) Petitioner joined the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on 6/5/1997. He worked satisfactory and earned good reports. He was promoted as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the year 2002 and was posted as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla Cheeka in the year 2006. He was conveyed the adverse remarks for the year 2006-2007 as under:-

(3.) The High Court in the reply has not denied the factual position of joining of the petitioner. It was also not denied that he was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 25/4/2013 when he would attain the age of 50 years, under provisions of Rule 3.26(d)(i) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I Part- I, (as applicable to the Haryana). Withdrawal of the judicial work is also not denied. It is also not denied that on the complaint received by the Administrative Judge, the District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal was asked to look into the same and that he submitted the preliminary report. Thereafter, the charge sheet was served to the petitioner. It is also not denied that in the regular inquiry, he was exonerated. It is claimed that adverse ACR was correctly recorded as 'C-integrity doubtful'. It is stated that the District Judge has found that the petitioner has made telephonic conversation on the telephone number of Mohinder Singh and one Gurinder Singh which proved that the petitioner was in connivance with those persons, which amounts to a mis-conduct. It is also not denied that on the basis of the regular inquiry, after examining the inquiry report, the Vigilance Committee recommended dropping of the proceedings which was accepted by the Full Court in the Meeting dtd. 17/8/2010. However, representation regarding expunging of adverse remarks 'C-integrity doubtful', was rejected by the Full Court after getting observations from the then Administrative Judge. The earlier service record being good was also not denied. After considering the entire record, the Full Court decided to pre-maturely retire the petitioner at the age of 50 years.