http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BHARAT RAM MEENA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/01/1997

BENCH: CJI., SUHAS C. SEN,

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T SEN,J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  has been  filed against an order passed by the Rajasthan  High Court  on a  writ petition  filed by the appellant for  quashing some  adverse remarks  made  in  his annual  confidential   report  for   the  year   1990.   The controversies raised  by the  appellant  in  this  case  are really questions of fact. The appellant Bharat Ram Meena was appointed as  Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate  on probation  for two years on 19.7.1985. The appellant was duly confirmed and later on  posted  as  Munsiff/Judicial  Magistrate,  Barmer, District Balotra.  In  the  years  1987,1988  and  1989  the appellant  discharged   the  duties   as   munsiff/judiciali magistrate Barmer  satisfactorily. It has been Stated by the appellant that  Shri Satya Prakash Pathak, the then District and sessions  judge, balotra  had found the appellant’s work satisfactory and  the Annual  confidential Reports  had been written accordingly.      General Elections  to the legislative Assembly of State of Rajasthan  were held  on  27.2.1990.  The  appellant  was deputed as  Zonal magistrate  for the purpose of election to the State  Assembly. On  20.2.1990, a  wireless message  had been issued  by the  Registrar, all  collectors of the State and District  and Sessions  judges permitting  deployment of judicial Magistrate and subordinate staff of judicial courts for election  duty. The  directions were  given by  the High Court to the District collectors to contact the District and sessions Judges  for this  purpose. The  Collectors were not authorised to  issue any  instructions to  Judicial Officers directly.  The  District  and  sessions  judges  had  to  be contacted for  giving instructions to the Judicial Officers. The collector, Barmer by order dated 17.02.1990 deployed the appellant as Zonal Officer/Zonal Magistrate for the election period commencing  from 23.2.1990  to 27.2.1990. In the said order of  the Collector, it was stated that a meeting of the Zonal Officers/Zonal  Magistrate was to he held at 3 P.M. on 22.2.1990. The  District and  Sessions Judge, Balotra by his order had  directed the  Zonal Officers  stationed at barmer (including  the   appellant)  to  work  upto  2.45  P.M.  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

22.2.1990 in  their respective courts and they were asked to attend the election duty from 23.2.1990 till 27.2.1990.      On 19.2.1990, the District collector without contacting the District  Sessions Judge, directly got in touch with the appellant and  sent him  to deliver  a D.O.  letter  to  the Deputy Secretary, judicial Department at jaipur. On the same date, the  appellant without  any reference to or permission from the District and Sessions Judge went to jaipur and came back  on  22.2.1990.  He  was  also  absent  from  Court  on 28.2.1990 without  prior permission  alleging that he was on election duty  for which  a certificate  from  the  District Election Officer  was produced.  In view of the unauthorised absence of  the appellant  from 19.2.1990  to 22.2.1990  and also on  28.2.1990 without  prior permission of the District and Sessions  Judge, an adverse entry was made in his annual Confidential Report  by the  District Judge and a report was submitted to  the Registrar of the High Court for initiating disciplinary   proceeding   against   the   appellant.   The disciplinary  authority,   passed  order  to  the  following effect:      "I deem  it proper  the  delinquent      officer to be given a warning to be      careful  in   future  to   maintain      absolute  devotion   to  duty   and      dignity of the office held by him."      The second  controversy involving the appellant started when the  appellant was  working  as  Munsiff  and  Judicial magistrate from  21.8.1987 to  28.4.1990. The  appellant had been invested  with jurisdiction  to hear  all cases arising and registered after 30.1.1990 under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe  (Prevention of  Attrocities) Act,  1989. On 26.3.1990, Constable  Man Singh  submitted a  challan in the case of  state versus  Nathu  Singh  &  Ors.  Under  section 430,.IPC and Section 3(13) of the 1989 Act.      The allegation against the appellant is that instead of entertaining the  case, he  threatened  that  the  constable would be  sent to  jail on  account of wrong presentation of challan. Thereafter,  the constable  approached Hari  Prasad Vyas, Assistant  Public Prosecutor  who appeared  before the appellant on  that very  date (26.3.1990) and submitted that under the order of the District Judge and in accordance with the provisions of Section 54(2) read with Section 193 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure, the challan had to be presented in the  Court of  the appellant.  The appellant did not pass any order  for  registering  the  case,  but  threatened  to register a  case against  Shri Vyas.  He, however, announced that he will pass an order on 27.3.1990.      On  27.3.1990,   the  Assistant     Public   Prosecutor submitted a  written complaint  against the appellant to the District  and   Sessions   Judge   D.J.   Pathak   narrating substantially the  allegations set  out  herein  above.  The District and  Sessions judge  on the  basis of the complaint called for the file concerning the said challan case. it was found from  the file  that  an  order  had  been  passed  on 26.3.1990 by  the appellant  in the  case,  C.P.  No.  30/90 (State  vs.   Nathu  Singh).  The  allegations  against  the appellant is  that  this  order  was  actually  dictated  on 27.3.1990 and  thereafter was  backdated to show that it had actually been passed on 26.3.1990.      The next  allegation  is  that  the  appellant  had  on 26.3.1990 passed an order in a criminal case, State Vs. Hari Singh. In  that case, no bail application was moved by or on behalf of  the accused  on that  date. The  Assistant Public Prosecutor had not been given a copy of any such application on 26.3.1990.  But it  could be seen from the order that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

records of the court had been manipulated. On 30.3.1990, the appellant forced  the advocate  for the accused to present a bail application  which was  actually entered  in the  Court Fees Register  on 30.3.1990 but it was shown as to have been entered on 26.3.1990.      The next  allegation is that on 1.4.1990, the appellant lodged an  FIR against  the Assistant Public Prosecutor Vyas alleging that  he had  lodged a  false complaint against the appellant to  the District  and Sessions  Judge, Balotra. It was further alleged that evidence had been collected against the appellant  by force  threatening the  witnesses to  harm him. In the FIR lodged by the appellant, it was stated after referring to  the irregularities  committed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor Vyas:      "........By reason  of  suppressing      the irregularities committed in the      above  challan,   gave  false   and      fabricated  informations   to   the      District and Sessions Judge, barmer      against me.  As a  result of  which      the  District  and  Session  Judge,      Balotra  who   is   may   executive      officer was  bound to  come in  the      official capacity in the police van      and made  the inquiry in connection      with my above file."      It was  further alleged  by the  appellant  that  as  a result of  the inquiry  caused by the District Judge, he had suffered great  mental agony  and the evidence was collected against him  after giving  threats to the witnesses to cause loss to the appellant.      On 2.4.1990,  the District and Sessions Judge, Balotra, after taking  evidence of  Shri Vyas,  the Assistant  Public Prosecutor, Shri  Lekhraj, Stenographer,  Tarachand  parmer, Reader, Swaroop  Singh, Advocate  and Man  Singh, Constable, sent a  reprot to  the Rajasthan  High Court  for initiating disciplinary proceedings  against the appellant. Thereafter, a departmental  inquiry was initiated against him under Rule 16 of  Rajasthan Civil  Services (Clarification, Control and Appeal) Rules,  1958 for acts amounting to gross misconduct, indiscipline, insubordination and dereliction of duty. There were further  charges of  commiting  acts  of  manipulation, substitution., addition  and  alternation  in  the  judicial records amounting  to misconduct.  There was  also change of being instrumental  for manipulation  and creation  of false and  inccorect  judicial  record,  misusing  his  power  and position by  pressuring the  advocate  the  move  ante-dated application. Further  charges were  about the conduct of the appellant in  lodging an  FIR   in which  the district Judge was implicated.      In the  Annual Confidential  Report  of  the  appellant which was  initially written  by the  District and  sessions judge, it  was alleged  that the  appellant’s integrity  was suspicious, he was not impartial, he was short tempered, his official conduct  was not  upto the  mark, he  lacked proper control   over the  office work,  he  was  an  irresponsible office and  he did  not enjoy good reputation about honesty. When the  Annual   Confidential Report  was submitted to the Inspecting Judge,  he remarked  that "I  agree with the D.J. Members of  Bar also have poor opinion about his conduct and work". The report was then submitted to the Chief Justice of Rajasthan  High   Court  who  agreed  with  the  report  and observed"....... There  is  nothing  to  differ  from  these observations, which  I endorse  and remark  that he is a bad officer".

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

    The adverse  remarks in  the Annual Confidential Report of the  appellant were communicated to him by the Registrar. The   appellant    was   informed   that   he   could   make representation,  if  any,  against  the  above  observations within fifteen days of the receipt of the communication. The appellant’s  representation,   however,  was  rejected.  The appellant was  in the meantime promoted as Civil Judge/Chief Judicial  Magistrate   on  24.5.1994.   On  11.1.1995,   the appellant field  a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court for quashing  the adverse  remarks made  against him  in the Annual  Confidential   Report.  The   High  Court,  however, dismissed the writ petition observing:      "We have  seen the  original A.C.Rs      of the officer and gone through the      case  and   find   no   ground   to      interfere with the recording of the      A.C.Rs for  the year  1990  in  the      extra ordinary writ jurisdiction"      The appellant  has  challenged  this  decision  of  the Rajasthan high  Court.  The  appellant  has  raised  several disputed questions  of fact.  The Annual Confidential Report was written  on the  basis of  allegations made  against the appellant by  the District  Judge.  The  appellant  had  his opportunity to  make representation against the report which he did. The appellant is to be judged on the strength of his work and  his conduct. We do not find that the assessment of the merit  of the  appellant can  be treated  in any  way as arbitrary or  without any  factual basis.  Nothing has  been brought on  record to  justify the  court in exercise of its wort jurisdiction to intervene and quash the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant.      The appellant’s grievance is that the High Court should not have  summarily dismissed  the writ petition, but should have examined  the facts  in detail.  We have  set  out  the allegations against  the appellant  in extenso.  He has,  of course, denied  the allegations,  but  it  is  a  matter  of appreciation of evidence. The writ Court rightly declined to enter into the controversy.      We are,  therefore, of  the view that there is no merit in this  appeal and  it must  be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.