Holding

Adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report, even if contested, are not arbitrary or without factual basis and cannot be set aside by a writ court; thus the High Court’s dismissal was justified.

Summary

Bharat Ram Meena, a Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate, challenged adverse remarks recorded in his 1990 Annual Confidential Report (ACR) that questioned his integrity, impartiality, and conduct. The remarks were based on allegations of unauthorized absences during election duties and alleged manipulation of judicial records, which led to disciplinary proceedings under Rajasthan Civil Services Rules. Meena filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the remarks, arguing they were arbitrary and that the High Court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without examining the facts. The Supreme Court held that the ACR remarks were not arbitrary or devoid of factual basis and that the High Court was correct in refusing to intervene, as the matter involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report can be quashed on the ground of arbitrariness or lack of factual basis under Article 226.
Whether the High Court erred in summarily dismissing the writ petition without a detailed factual inquiry.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be decided by a writ court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 193, s. 54(2)
Constitution of Indias. 226
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 430
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958s. 16

Subjects

Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarkswrit jurisdictionArticle 226disputed questions of factdisciplinary proceedingscivil service rulesjudicial misconduct

Judgment

~

BHARAT RAM MEENA A
_,
"'-~· v.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND ORS .
... JANUARY 29, 1997

[A.M. AHMADI, C.J., AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.] B

Service Law:

Annual Confidential Report-Adverse remarks-Judicial review
of-Held: Adverse remarks neither arbitra1y nor without any factual basis-In
the circumstances of the case, such adverse remarks could not be quashed in
c
exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Annual Confidential Report-Adverse remarks-Judicial review
of-Disputed questions of fact-Writ jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held: In the
circumstances of the case, not wmranted Constitution of India, 1950: Article D
226.
~~;

Disputed questions of fact-Writ jurisdiction-Exercise of-Refusal of
High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction upheld.

In the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant, a Munsiff/Judi- E
cial Magistrate, the District and Sessions Judge made adverse remarks
that the appellant's integrity was suspicious, he was not impartial, he was
short temper~d, his official conduct was not upto the mark, he lacked
proper control over the office work, he was an irresponsible officer and he
did not enjoy a good reputation about honesty. The Inspecting Judge
remarked, "I agree with the DJ. Members of Bar also have poor opinion F
~.
-I

about his conduct and work." The Chief Justice of the High Court 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'. The
appellant's representation against the adverse remarks was rejected. The
appellant was in the meantime promoted as Civil Judge/Chief Judicial G
Magistrate. The writ petition challenging the aforesaid adverse remarks
was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. ·'.

..
-4
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELff: 1. The appellant has raised several disputed questions of H
673
i

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
i
A fact. The Annual Confidential Report was written on the basis of allega-
tions 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.
The assessment of the merit of the appellant cannot be treated in any way
B as arbitrary or without any factual basis. Nothing has been brought on
record to justify the Court in 1~xercise of its writ jurisdiction to intervene
and quash the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the
appellant. (678-F-G]

2. The appellant's grievance is that the High Court should not have
C summarily dismissed the writ pdition, but should have examined the facts
in detail. There are allegations against the appellant, which have been
denied by him. But it is a matter appreciation of evidence. The Writ Court
rightly declined to enter into the controversy. [678-H, 679-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 456 of
D 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.95 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 5712 of 1993.

Pallav Shishodia and AP. Medh for the Appellant.
E
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. Leave granted.
F
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/Judi-
G cial 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/Judicial Magistrate, Barmer Satisfactorily. It has been
stated by the appellant that Shri Satya Prakash Pathak, the ·then District
H and Sessions Judge, Balotra had found the appellant's work satisfactory
B.R MEENAv. RAJ.H.C. [S.C. SEN,J.] 675

and the Annual confidential Reports had been written accordingly. A

General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of State of Rajasthan
were held on 27.2.1990. The appeJ!ant 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, Rajasthan High Court to the
Election Officer, Rajasthan, all Collectors of the State and District and
B
Sessions Judges permitting deployment of Judicial Magistrates and subor-
dinate 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 Ses- c
sions Judges had to be contacted for giving instructions to the Judicial
Officers. The Collector, Barmer by order dated 17.2.1990 deployed the
appellant as Zonal Officer/Zonal Magistrate for the election period com-
mencing 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 Magistrates was to D
be held al 3. P.M. on 22.2.1990. The District and Sessions Judge, Balotro.
by his order had directed that Zonal Offices stationed at Barmer (including
the appellant) to work upto 2.45 P.M. on 22.2.1990 in their respective
courts and they were asked to attend the election duty from 23.2.1990 till
27.2.1990.
E
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 p
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 certifi-
cate 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 G
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 H
I

676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
-1
[1997] 1 S.C.R. \

A 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 21.8.87 to
28.4.1990. The appellant had been invested with jurisdiction to hear all
B cases arising and registered after 30.1.1990 under the Schedule Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. On 26.3.1990, Con-
stable Man Singh submitted a challan in the case of State versus Nathu
Singh & Ors. under Section 430, UPC and Section 3(13) of the 1989 Act.

C 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 appel-
lant on that very date (26.3.1990) and snbmitted that under the order of
the District Judge and in accordance with the provisions of Section 54(2)
D read witli 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.

E On 27.3.1990, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted a written
complaint against the appellant to the District and Sessions Judge DJ.
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
F (State v. 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 v. Hari Singh. In that case, no bail application
G 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 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
H 'court Fees Register on 30.3.1990 but it was shown as to have been entered
B.R. MEENA v. RAJ.. H.C. [S.C. SEN, J.] 677

on 26.3.1990. A
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 B
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 Dis- C
trict and Sessions Judge, Barmer against me. As a result of which
the District and Sessions Judge, Balotra who is my 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 D
caused by the District Judge, he had suffered great mental agony and the
evidence was collected against him after givin~ threats to the witnesses to
cause loss to the appellant.

· On 2.4.1990, the District and Sessions Judge, Balotra, after taking E
evidence of Shri Vyas, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Shri Lekhraj,
Stenographer, Tarachand Parmer, Reader Swaroop Singh, Advocate and
Man Singh, Constable, sent a report 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 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 for acts F
amounting to gross misconduct, indiscipline, insubordination and derelic-
tion of duty. There were further charges of committing acts of manipula-
tion, substitution, addition and alternation in the judicial records
amounting to misconduct. There was also charge of being instrumental for
manipulation and creation of false and incorrect judicial record, misusing G
his power and position by pressurising the advocate to 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 ini-
tially written by the District and Sessions Judge, it was alleged that the H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.
A 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 officer 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
B 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''.

C 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.
D On 11.1.1995, the appellant filed 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:

E "We have seen the original AC.Rs. of the Officer and gone through
the case and find no ground to interfere with the recording of the
AC.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
F Annual Confidential Report was written on the basis of allegations made
against the appellant by the District Judge. The appellant had his oppor-
tunity to make representation against the report which he did. The appel-
lant is to be judged on the strength of his work and his conduct. We do
not find th at the assessment of the merit of the appellant can be treated in
G any way as arbitrary or without any factual basis. Nothing has been brought
on record to justify the Court in exercise of its writ 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
H summarily dismissed the writ petition, but should have examined the facts
B.R. MEENA v. RAJ. H.C. [S.C. SEN, J.] 679
"· +- in detail. We have set out the allegations against the appellant in extenso. A
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.
B
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.