LI Network
Published on: 06 September 2023 at 17:21 IST
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has invalidated an adverse entry in the service record of judicial officer Sunil Kumar Singh-III and directed his promotion with retrospective effect from UPHJS 2015.
The court held that when the complaints leading to an adverse entry are proven false, maintaining such an entry would be unjust.
The bench, composed of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Rajeev Misra, emphasized that once complaints against the petitioner are discredited as untruthful, the basis for awarding an adverse entry vanishes. In this context, the court rejected the relevance of a decision cited by the respondent’s counsel and deemed it inapplicable to uphold the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner.
Background:
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh-III, held the position of Civil Judge, Junior Division, and was stationed in Lucknow since December 23, 2003. Until the year 2012-13, the petitioner consistently received good or very good entries in his Annual Confidential Reports. However, in 2013-2014, the District Judge of Ghaziabad, who was subsequently elevated to the High Court, issued an adverse entry on the petitioner’s ACR, citing “doubtful” integrity due to various complaints against him.
Despite the petitioner’s representations against the adverse entry before the Administrative Committee of the High Court, they were rejected, leading to the dismissal of his writ petition. Subsequently, a review application was filed on the grounds that the Court had failed to inform the petitioner of the ongoing inquiry against him. The review application was granted, and the case was re-argued on its merits.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that, according to Rule 5(2) of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970, an annual entry could only be awarded while the District Judge was in office or within one month thereafter. However, the Reporting Officer issued the adverse entry seven months after relinquishing office and being elevated to the High Court, which was deemed illegal.
The Court was informed of a circular stipulating that if an “officer’s integrity is doubtful or positively lacking, it may be so stated with all relevant facts, reasons, and supporting material.” In this case, no reasons or supporting material were provided to doubt the petitioner’s integrity and withhold his promotion during the pendency of the writ petition.
Furthermore, it was argued that all charges against the petitioner were dropped during the inquiry proceedings, rendering any adverse entry based on untrue complaints untenable.
Although the counsel for the respondents acknowledged that the documents used to award the adverse entry were not shared with the petitioner, he defended the decision by stating that it was made by the reporting officer, the former District Judge, and therefore, should not be challenged in light of the petitioner’s submissions.
High Court Verdict:
The key issue before the Court was whether the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner was sustainable given the note appended to column 1A of the circular dated May 19, 2007, or if it could be upheld based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Singh Verma (dead) through and Others vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of DELHI).
The Court determined that the circular outlining the procedure for writing remarks in the ACR was mandatory, not directory. It held that since the recorded adverse entry stated “Integrity doubtful due to several complaints against the petitioner,” the circular’s mandate was not followed.
Furthermore, as most of the complaints were disregarded in the inquiry proceedings, with no adverse findings against the petitioner, the Court ruled that an adverse entry based on such complaints could not stand.
The Court relied on a decision by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Rajvir Singh Vs. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court Alld. Thru. Registrar General & Ors, which emphasized that annual character roll entries should be based on an overall assessment of an officer’s work and conduct. In the petitioner’s case, except for the adverse remarks in the ACR for 2011-12, which were under challenge, his service record remained unblemished.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner’s promotion with retrospective effect.
“Given that the petitioner was not promoted to the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) Cadre in UPHJS 2015 due to the pending inquiry proceedings, the Court ordered his promotion with retrospective effect, specifically to UPHJS 2015,” the Court declared.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh III vs. State of U.P. and Another