SRI HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed in the Bihar Superior Judicial Service in 1991. It is stated by him that no adverse remarks were ever made against him in his long tenure of service except by communication dated 5.8.2005 for the year 2004- 2005 when he was working as District & Sessions Judge, Munger. The following adverse remarks have been recorded against him:?

(2.) HE was later transferred as District & Sessions Judge from Munger to Muzaffarpur. After 2004-2005 also there are no adverse remarks against him. HE was also granted super-time scale after considering his ability, integrity and honesty. It is also his case that he conducted the office of the District Judge with utmost integrity and honesty. It is his further case that immediately on receiving communication relating to complaints against him, he made a representation contradicting allegations in the complaint but the same did not find favour and was rejected after consideration of the Standing Committee. Thereafter, an inquiry with regard to the allegations made in the complaints by three persons including one Advocate was conducted. The notice was issued to three persons who made complaints as well as the petitioner. The petitioner replied to each and every charge but the persons who made complaints were not found at their given addresses and even their names did not exist at the place and addresses given in complaints. Enquiry Officer, an Honourable Judge of this Court has exonerated him from the allegations made against him. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation for expunction of impugned adverse remarks but that was also rejected. It is also submitted that during the whole tenure of 2004- 05 while the petitioner was posted as District & Sessions Judge, Munger, the Honourable Inspecting Judge who made the confidential remarks had not conducted any inspection of the Munger Judgeship and no enquiry was conducted by him and as such there was no occasion to form any opinion or making any remarks against him. The communication was made wholly based on the frivolous complaints which could not be proved in the enquiry.