PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

                [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 827

                       PRATAP SINGH                                A
                               v.
                  STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
            (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2307 OF 2011)
                    NOVEMBER 15, 2011
                                                                   B
   [R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

     Judicial Service - Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 1975 - Rule 22 - Appellant, a judicial officer not
promoted in the substantive vacancy to Uttar Pradesh Higher        C
Judicial Service (UPHJS) and, reverted as Civil Judge (Senior
Division) - On basis of remarks given by the District Judge
in the ACR of appellant that he was most irresponsible and
indisciplined officer - Legality of - Held: Documentary
evidence on record made it clear that tie remarks of the           D
District Judge that the appellant was, 'irresponsible and
indisciplined officer who has no regard for superiors or truth'
had been expunged/substituted by the Inspecting Judge -
The effect of such expunctionlsubstitution was that the
appellant could not be considered an irresponsible or              E
indisciplined officer on the basis of remarks recorded by the
District Judge - Due to consideration of the remarks recorded
by the District Judge and not taking into consideration that
such remarks were expunged/substituted as communicated
to the appellant, the very consideration of the appellant's case   F
for promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS under the
1975 Rules by the selection committee and by the full court
got seriously and vitally affected - The matter for appellant's
promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS thus needed
re-consideration in accordance with law.
                                                                   G
    The appellant, a judicial officer, was not promoted in
the substantive vacancy to Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial
Service (UPHJS) and, as a result, was reverted as Civil
Judge (Senior Division).
                              827                                  H
    828     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A      The Selection committee did not recommend the
  appellant's name for promotion under Rule 22(1) of the
  Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 in view
  of the remarks given by the District Judge in the ACR of
  the appellant. The committee referred to the remarks of
B the District Judge that the appellant was most
  irresponsible and indisciplined officer. The report of the
  committee was considered by the full court in its meeting
  and the name of the appellant was accordingly not
  approved for appointment in UPHJS under Rule 22 (1) of
c the 1975 Rules.
         The question which arose for consideration in the
    instant appeal was whether non-approval of the appellant
    for promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS under
    Rule 22(1) of the 1975 Rules suffered from any illegality.
D
          Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the remarks recorded
  by the District Judge, Lalitpur in the ACR for 1996-97
E (June 12, 1996 to March 31, 1997) formed the basis of non-
  approval of the appellant'i; name for promotion in the
  substantive vacancy in the UPHJS. That the District
  Judge, Lalitpur rated the appellant in the ACR recorded
  for the above period as an 'irresponsible and indisciplined
  officer' is borne out from the record. Agai.1st the remarks
F made by the District Judge, the appellant made a
  comprehensive representation to the Registrar on June
  28, 1997. The representation made by the appellant was
  considered by the Inspecting Judge of Lalitpur District.
  Vi de communication dated October 21, 1997, the.
G appellant was informed that the adverse remarks
  recorded by the District Judge in column No. 1 (e)(iii) -
  'disposal of old cases : not satisfactory" and the adverse
  remarks in column no. 1 (e)(iv) -"progress and disposal
  of execution cases: there were three execution cases of
H
     PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.               829

1996 but no case was disposed of" had been expunged.           A
In the above communication, the appellant was also
informed that column no. 2-"overall assessment of the
merit of the officer - outstanding, very good, good, fair,
poor : Poor. Irresponsible and indisciplined officer who
has no regard for his superiors or truth. Details              B
mentioned in column no. 3 below" has been substituted
by "overall assessment - just average". A careful reading
of the communication dated October 21, 1997 leaves no
manner of doubt that the adverse remarks given by the
District Judge, Lalitpur in column no. 2 that appellant was    c
irresponsible and indisciplined officer for the facts stated
in column no. 3 no longer remained as it is and were
substituted by "just average". The consideration of the
remarks recorded by the District Judge, Lalitpur by the
selection committee as well as by the full court in its        D
meeting held on July 11, 1998 was, thus, not proper.
[Paras 14, 15] [838-G-H; 829-A-G]

      2. A judicial officer has to be disciplined and must
behave as a responsible officer. Indiscipline in the
judiciary cannot be tolerated. However, the remarks of the E
District Judge that the appellant was, 'irresponsible and
indisciplined officer who has no regard for superiors or
truth' have been expunged/substituted by the Inspecting
Judge. The effect of such expunction/substitution is that
the appellant cannot be considered an irresponsible or F
indisciplined officer on the basis of remarks recorded by
the District Judge. The gravity of what has been recorded
is, thus, lost. Moreover, the root of the problem between
the two senior judicial officers appears to be clash of ego.
The observation noted in column (3), 'He never came to G
me in the chamber or at the residence to discuss any
problem relating to Nazarat' indicates that the District
Judge was not happy with the appellant for having not
given due importance to him. [Para 17] [841-D-G]
                                                             H
    830     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R.

A      3. Due to consideration of the remarks recorded by
  the District Judge and not taking into consideration that
  such remarks were expunged/substituted as
  communicated to the appellant vide communication
  dated October 21, 1997, the very consideration of the
B appellant's case for promotion in the substantive
  vacancy in UPHJS under the 1975 Rules by the selection
  committee in its meeting dated May 18, 1998 and by the
  full court in its meeting held on July 11, 1998 gets
  seriously and vitally affected. [Para 18] [841-H; 842-A-B]
c      4. The matter for the appellant's promotion in the
  substantive vacancy in UPHJS which was considered by
  the selection committee on May 18, 1998 and by the full
  court on July 11, 1998 needs to be reconsidered in
  accordance with law. Since the appellant is likely to
D superannuate shortly, the High Court on its
  administrative side is expected to complete this exercise
  as early as possible and preferably within one month
  from the date of the communication of this order. [Para
  21] (842-F-G]
E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2307 of 2011.

       From the Judgment & dated 21.12.2009 of the High Court
  of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Civil
F Misc. Writ No. 8 [S/B] Now D.B. of 1999.

        Dinesh Dwivedi, P.N. Gupta, Manish Shankar Srivastava,
    Varun Chaudhary, Prateek Dwivedi for the Appellant.

G         Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       R.M. LODHA, J. 1. The appellant - a judicial officer -
  having not been promoted in the substantive vacancy to Uttar
H Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (for short, 'UPHJS') and, as
        PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                    831
                  [R.M. LODHA, J.]
, a result of which, was reverted as Civil Judge (Senior Division)      A
  is in appeal, by special leave.

       2. The appellant, after due selection, joined judicial service
  in Uttar Pradesh as Munsiff on May 16, 1977 and was
  confirmed as such on August 30, 1982. He became,Additional            8
  Civil Judge on JanuaryA, 1986 and got selection grade of Rs.
  3700 - 5000 with effect from April 1, 1990. He then became
  Civil Judge (Senior Division).

        3. The Allahabad High Court, on the administrative side,
  in its full court meeting held on November 18, 1995, approved         C
  promotion of the appellant in officiating capacity under Rule
  22(3) of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (for
  short, '1975 Rules'). Pursuant to the above decision taken by
  the full court, a notification was issued on June 7, 1996
  promoting and posting the appellant as Additional District and        D
  Sessions Judge, Lalitpur.

       4. While the appellant was posted as Additional District
  and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, Shri Mukteshwar Prasad
  happened to be District Judge, Lalitpur. The appellant was            E
  made Officer in-charge, Nazarat by the District Judge with effect
  from September 10, 1996. The appellant continued as such until
  March, 1997 or so. It so happened that in the intervening night
  of January 30/31, 1997, some thieves entered the residence
  of the appellant and tried to break open the doors. The
  appellant suspected the involvement of class-IV employees of          F
  Lalitpur Judgeship. On that day, the District Judge was on leave
  and the appellant handed over an application to the Senior
  Administrative Officer wherein he alleged the support of the
  District Judge to class IV employees suspected to have entered
  the house of the appellant for theft. The application made by         G
  the appellant to the Senior Administrative Officer was kept in
  an open envelope. The District Judge, Lalitpur sought
  explanation from the appellant With regard to the allegations
  made by him in his application and also gave information of
  t~e incident to the Registrar of the High Court as well as the        H
    832     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   inspecting Judge of Lalitpur Judgeship on February 19, 1997.

          5. In the appellant's annual confidential report (ACR) of the
    year 1996-97 (June 12, 1996 to March 31, 1997), the District
    Judge (Shri Mukteshwar Prasad) made the following remarks:
B
     "(a) Integrity of the officer whether      Beyond doubt. No
          beyond doubt, doubtful or             complaint received.
          positively lacking.

c    (b) If he is fair and impartial in         No specific comp-
         dealing with the public and            laint was made to
         bar.                                   me.

     (c) If he is cool-mind and does            Yes
         not lose temper in court.
D
     (d) His private character, if such         No        complaint
         as to lower .him in the                received against his
         estimation of the public and           private character.
         adversely     affects      the
E        discharge of his official
         duties.

     (e) co·ntrol over the file in the
         matter of-
F          (i)   Proper fixation of cause       Not proper. On an
                 list.                          Average, he fixed
                                                22-23 cases.
           (ii) Avoidance of                    Satisfactory
                unnecessary
G
                adjournments
           (iii) Disposal of old                Not satisfactory.
                 cases.                         Disposed of one
                                                S.T. of 1991, 2 of
H                                               1992 and 6 of 1993
      PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                 833
                [R.M. LODHA, J.]
                                        out of 7 of 1991, 32 of   A
                                        1992 and 36 of 1993.

(iv) Progress and disposal of           There      were     3
     execution cases.                   execution cases of
                                        1996 but no case was      B
                                        disposed of. One
                                        case is stayed by the
                                        Hon'ble High Court.

      (v) Interim         orders,       Yes.
      injunctions Being granted,                                  c
      refused to retained for
      sufficient reasons.

      (vi) Are cases remanded on        No   appeal       was
      substantial grounds?              remanded.                 o
(f)   Whether judgments on facts        Judgments of average
      and law are on the whole          quality.
      sound, well reasoned and
      expressed in good language.
                                                                  E
(g) Whether disposal of work is         Out-turn being 132%
    adequate (give percentage &         is above the standard.
    reasons for short disposal).        As per statement
                                        received as against
                                        133 working days, he      F
                                        gave work for 175.88.

(h) Control over the office and         Proper.
    administrative capacity and
    tact.                                                         G

(i)   Relation with members of the      Normal
      bar [mention incidents, if any]

0)    Behaviour in relation to          Normal
                                                                  H




                                 •
    834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A           brnther Officers [mention
            incidents, if any]

     (k) Whether the officer has made
         Regular inspections of his             YES
         court and Offices in his
B
         charge during the year and
         whether such inspections
         were full and effective.

    (I)     His punctuality in sitting in the
c           court                               Punctual.

    (m) Whether amenable to advice
        of District Judge and other             He is not amenable at
        superior Officers.                      all to the advice of the
                                                District Judge. Reasons
D                                               given below in column
                                                no. 3.
    2.      Overall assessment of the
                                                Poor. Irresponsible and
            merit of the officer-out-
                                                indisciplined officer who
            standing, very good, good,
                                                has no regard for his
E           fair, poor.
                                                super-iors or truth.
                                                Details mentioned in
                                                column no. 3 below.
          3. Other Remarks, if any.

F         After taking over charge by me in this district, the officer
          was appointed Officer-in-Charge, Nazarat w.e.f.
           10.9.1996. He being the next senior most officer in the
          Judgeship and only Addi. District Judge at that time, was
          expected to extend his full cooperation and assistance in
G         the affairs of the Judgeship. Since very beginning, I found
          that his altitude was not cooperative and in fact he look
          no interest at all for improvement in working of Nazarat.
          He never came to me in the chamber or at the residence
          to discuss any problem relating to Nazarat. In the month
          of November, 1996, he made a request in writing for
H
  PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                 835
            [R.M. LODHA, J.]
relieving him from the post of Officer-in-charge, Nazarat. I   A
summoned him and persuaded to continue as Officer-in-
charge, Nazarat. With reluctance, he agreed to continue.
Again he sent an application on 22.1.97 for removing him
from the post of Officer-in-charge, Nazarat on the ground
that Sri Shanker Lal, a Class IV employee was not              B
transferred by me on his oral and written request. It is
noteworthy that Sri Shanker Lal was transferred and in his
place Sri Manik Chand was posted in his court vide order
dated 30.1.97. Sri Singh was highly interested in a Class
IV employee [Sri Swand Singh] and wanted his posting in        c
his court but he was not transferred there for some
administrative reasons. He joined the service in August,
1996.
      He always complained of non-cooperation of Central
Nazir and other officials working in the Nazarat and passed D
an order also on 23.12.96 to the effect that the Central
Nazir-never took round of the courts and never checked
Chowkidars. In pursuance of this order, Central Nazir Sri
Shamsher Bahadur Srivastava took a surprise round of the
Civil Court building on 12.1.97 at about 3.35 a.m. and E
checked both Chowkidars at 3.50 a.m. Bot~ Chowkidars, ·
namely, Sarvasri Swank Singh and Guiab Chand Saroj
were found sleeping. He submitted his report to the Officer-·
in-charge, Nazarat to call explanation of the Chowkidars.
Sri Singh took no action against the Chowkidars and F
warned them to be vigilant in future.
       Sri Singh always found shirking from work and never
 rendered any assistance to me in dealing with various
 problems of the Judgeship. Before posting of Sri Jai Singh,
a newly promoted Addi. District Judge in the district in the   G
 month of March, 1997, he was senior most Addi. District
·Judge in the Judgestiip. He, however, did not play his role
 properly for the simple reason that a Class IV employee
 of his choice was not posted by me in his court.
                                                               H
    836      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A          2. Sri Singh levelled totally false and baseless allegation
           against me in writing on 31.1.1997 when I was out of
           station and had gone to Gwalior. In my absence he handed
           over an application to Senior Administrative Officer and
           did not even keep the application in an envelope.
B          Consequently, the contents of the letter were well-known
           to all the officials and officers working under me before my
          arrival at the headquarters. He levelled accusation against
           me that some thieves tried to break open the doors of his
           residence in the night intervening 30/31.1.1997. He
c         suspected the involvement of some Class IV employees
          of the judgeship. According to him the thieves were Class
          IV employees of the judgeship and I was supporting them.
          After having gone through the contents of the letter, I was
          stunned. I sent a letter to Sri Singh and sought his reply
          on a few questions. In his reply dated 6.2.97, he tried to
D
          twist his letter dated 31.1.97. Thus the officer tried to
          tarnish my image in the eyes of other officers and officials
          of the Judgeship and committed an act of gross
          indiscipline.
E      I have already communicated these facts to the Registrar
       of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as
       well as Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge of Lalitpur through my
       D.O. letters No. 4 and 5/P.A./1997 dated 19.2.1997.

F      For all the above reasons, I have rated the officer to be
       most irresponsible and indisciplined."

       6. The above adverse remarks recorded by the District
  Judge, Lalitpur were communicated to the appellant on May 30,
  1997. On receipt of the communication, the appellant made
G representation to the Registrar on June 28, 1997 and prayed
  that the adverse remarks recorded by the District Judge be
  expunged.
      7. On October 21, 1997, the appellant was communicated
H by the Joint Registrar that after consideration of his
      PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                    837
                [R.M. LODHA, J.]
representation, the remarks recorded by the District Judge in         A
Column No. 1(e)(iii), 1(e)(iv) for the year 1996-97 have been
expunged and Column No. 2 has been substituted by the court
as - 'overall assessment - just average'.

     8. It is the appellant's case that on July 11, 1998, he came     B
to know that the full court in its meeting held on that day did not
approve the appellant's name for his appointment in the
substantive vacancy in UPHJS. The appellant submitted a
representation to the High Court on administrative side on
August 19, 1998 to reconsider the decision taken on July 11,          C
1998. The representation of the appellant was not favourably
considered and on December 5, 1998 a notification was issued
on the basis of the decision taken by the full court on July 11,
1998 reverting the appellant to the judicial service, i.e. Civil
Judge (Senior Division).
                                                                      D
      9. The appellant challenged the notification dated
December 5, 1998 in a writ petition before the Allahabad High
Court at Lucknow Bench and prayed for quashing the same.
He prayed that report of the selection committee dated May 18,
1998 and record of the decision of the full court taken on July       E
11, 1998 insofar as appellant was concerned be called for and
a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents
to treat the appellant having been promoted to the UPHJS and
ignore the remarks made by the District Judge in the ACR for
the year 1996-97.                                                     F

    10. The above writ petition was contested by the
respondents.

     ·11. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the
parties, by its order dated December 21, 2009 dismissed the           G
writ petition.

     12. We heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2.                                     H
     838   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A           13. From the counter affidavit filed before this Court on
     behalf of respondent No. 2 - High Court of Judicature at
     Allahabad - it transpires that the matter for promotion of the
     appellant in UPHJS under Rule 22 (3) of the 1975 Rules was
     considered by the HJS Selection Committee of three-Judges
B    in its meeting held on November 10, 1995 and the name of the
     appellant was recommended for promotion to UPHJS in ad-
     hoc capacity. The report of the selection committee was
     considered by the full court in its meeting held on November
     18, 1995 and the appellant's name was approved for promotion
C    to UPHJS in ad-hoc capacity. The appellant was accordingly
     promoted to UPHJS and given posting at Lalitpur as Additional
     District and Sessions Judge. Thereafter appellant's matter for
     promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS was
    considered by the selection committee comprising of three-
    Judges on May 18, 1998. The committee, however, did not
D   recommend the appellant's name for promotion under Rule
    22(1) of the 1975 Rules in view of the remarks given by the
    District Judge in the ACR for the year 1996-97. The committee
    referred to the remarks of the District Judge made in column 3
    that he was most irresponsible and indisciplined officer. The
E   report of the above committee was considered by the full court
    in its meeting held on July 11, 1998 and his name was not
    approved for appointment in UPHJS under Rule 22 (1) of the
    1975 Rules. The question before us is: whether non-approval
    of the appellant for promotion in the substantive vacancy in
F   UPHJS under Rule 22(1) of the 1975 Rules suffers from any
    illegality.
       14. It is not in dispute that the remarks recorded by Uie
  District Judge, Lalitpur in the ACR for 1996-97 (June 12, 1996
G to March 31, 1997) formed the basis of non-approval of the
  appellant's name for promotion in the substantive vacancy in
  the UPHJS. That the District Judge, Lalitpur rated the appellant
  in the ACR recorded for the above period as an 'irresponsible
  and indisciplined officer' is borne out from the record. Against
H the remarks made by the District Judge, the appellant made a
       PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                    839
                 [R.M. LODHA, J.]

comprehensive representation to the Registrar on June 28,              A.
1997. It is not necessary to refer to the representation made
by the appellant in detail. Suffice it to say that the appellant did
highlight that his integrity has been found to be beyond doubt
and that in about 20 years of his judicial service, he has been
posted with 24 District Judges and except the adverse remarks          B
made by Shri Mukteshwar Prasad, District Judge, Lalitpur for
the above period at no point of time any District Judge recorded
any adverse remark about his conduct, integrity or performance.
The appellant emphatically denied the observations of the
District Judge, Lalitpur, recorded in the ACR and explained the        c
entire episode.

     15. The representation made by the appellant was
considered by the Inspecting Judge of Lalitpur District. Vide
communication dated October 21, 1997, the appellant was
informed that the adverse remarks recorded by the District             D
Judge in column No. 1 (e)(iii) - 'disposal of old cases : not
satisfactory" and the adverse remarks in column no. 1 (e)(iv) -
"progress and disposal of execution cases: there were three
execution cases of 1996 but no case was disposed of' had
been expunged. In the above communication, the appellant was           E
also informed that column no. 2-"overall assessment of the
merit of the officer - outstanding, very good, good, fair, poor:
Poor. Irresponsible and indisciplined officer who has no regard
for his superiors or truth. Details mentioned in column no. 3
below" has been substituted by "overall assessment - just              F
average". A careful reading of the communication dated
October 21, 1997 leaves no manner of doubt that the adverse
remarks given by the District Judge, Lalitpur in column no. 2
that appellant was irresponsible and indisciplined officer for the
facts stated in column no. 3 no longer remained as it is and           G
were substituted by "just average". The consideration of the
remarks recorded by the District Judge, Lalitpur by the selection
committee as well as by the full court in its meeting held on July
 11, 1998 was, thus, not proper.

      16. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of         H
    840     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A respondent No. 2 before this Court, in paragraph 'C', the
  complete text of the order passed by the Inspecting Judge on
  August 6, 1997 on the representation of the appellant has been
  re-produced which reads as follows :

          ·1 have gone through the adverse remarks given by the
B
       District Judge, Sri Mukteshwar Prasad in para - 1 (e)(i),
        1(e)(iii), 1(e)(iv), 1(f) and 1(m) as well as in column no. 2
       relating to "over all assessment" and column no. 3 relating
       to "other remarks, if any", I have also gone through the
       representation preferred by the officer concerned. Looking
c      to the representation made by the officer concerned, I feel
       that the conclusions arrived at by the District Judge in para
       1(e)(i) and 1(f) do not deserve to be expunged while the
       conclusions arrived at under column 1(e)(iii) and 1(e)(iv)
       deserve to be expunged .
D                                •
              The details given by the District Judge in remarks
       column no. 3 do go to indicate that Sri Pratap Singh-II is
        not amenable to the advice of the former, i.e. District
       Judge. As far as the over-all assessment taken to be 'poor'
E      by the District Judge is concerned; I do not agree with the
       conclusions arrived at by him. Instead, looking to the
       reasons given by the Judicial Officer, Sri Pratap Singh-II
       in this regard, I find logic in them; since his integrity has
       been described by the District Judge to be beyond doubt
       and his work out-tum has been described to be above
F
       standard then, obviously, the over all assessment could not
       be 'poor'. Thus, it deserves to be expunged, and, instead,
       keeping in mind the complete A.C.R. and the remarks
       given by the District Judge, overall assessment can be
       rated as "just average'.
G
             Further, since remarks given by the District Judge,
       Sri Mukteshwar Prasad are based on factual aspects
       which had also been communicated to the Registrar of the
       High Court as well as to me, the Inspecting Judge, at the
H      opportune time, hence, they do not deserve to be
      PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                  841
                [R.M. LODHA, J.]
    expunged, and the representation made by the Judicial          A
    Officer, Sri Pratap Singh-II in this regard deserves to be
    rejected."
      17. On October 11, 2011, in course of hearing, Mr. Ravi
Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 made
a request for adjournment to enable him to seek instructions B
as to whether or not along with the communication dated
October 21, 1997, copy of the decision of the Inspecting Judge,
as reproduced above, was sent to the appellant. We acceded
to the request of the counsel and kept the matter for October
18, 2011. On October 18, 2011, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, c
fairly stated that the copy of the decision of the Inspecting Judge
was not sent to the appellant and he was informed of what was
contained in the communication dated October 21, 1997 only:
In our view, in the above circumstances the text of the decision
of the Inspecting Judge dated August 6, 1997 cannot be used D
against the appellant. It needs no emphasis that a judicial officer
has to be disciplined and must behave as a responsible officer.
Indiscipline in the judiciary cannot be tolerated. However, as
noted above, the remarks of the District Judge that the
appellant was, 'irresponsible and indisciplined officer who has E
no regard for superiors or truth' have been expunged/substituted
by the Inspecting Judge. The effect of such expunction/
substitution is that the appellant cannot be considered an
irresponsible or indisciplined officer on the basis of remarks
recorded by the District Judge. The gravity of what has been
recorded in column (3) is, thus, lost. Moreover, the root of the
                                                                    F
problem between the two senior judicial officers appears to be
clash of ego. In the words of Samuel Johnson, every man is of
importance to himself. The observation noted ln column (3), 'He
never came to me in the chamber or at the residenc~ to discuss
any problem relating to Nazarat' indicates that the. District G
Judge was not happy with the appellant for having not gi~n due
 importance to him.
     18. Be that as it may, due to consideration of the remarks
recorded by the District Judge and not taking into consideration
                                                                   H
     842    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

 A that such remarks were expunged/substituted as
   communicated to the appellant vide communication dated
   October 21, 1997, the very consideration of the appellant's
   case for promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS under
   the 1975 Rules by the selection committee in its meeting dated
 B May 18, 1998 and by the full court in its meeting held on July
   11, 1998 gets seriously and vitally affected.
        19. It is important to notice that in the counter affidavit filed
   on behalf of respondent no. 2, it has been stated that
   appellant's matter for promotion in the substantive vacancy in
c UPHJS was again considered by the selection committee on
   November 24, 2004 but in view of the matter being sub Judice,
   it was resolved that appellant's name could not be considered
  for regular appointment under Rule 22(1) of the 1975 Rules and
  the above report of the selection committee was accepted by
0 the full court in its meeting held on February 5, 2005.
        20. In what we have discussed above, it is not necessary
  to consider the submissions of the learned senior counsel for
  the appellant that under Chapter Ill, Rule 4(8)(3) and Rule
  4(C)(16) of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of the Court),
E 1952 framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the
  District Judge had no competence to make any remark with
  regard to the appellant.
       21. In our view, the matter for the appellant's promotion in
  the substantive vacancy in UPHJS which was considered by
F the selection committee on May 18, 1998 and by the full court
  on July 11, 1998 needs to be reconsidered in light of the
  discussion made above and in accordance with law. Since the
  appellant is likely to superannuate shortly, we expect the High
  Court on its administrative side to complete this exercise as
G early as possible and preferably within one month from the date
  of the communication of this order.
       22 .. The appeal is allowed, as indicated above, with no
   order as to costs.
H B.B.B.                                             Appeal allowed.