'Very good' officer cannot overnight become bad: HC

In a rare indictment of one of its own judges, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the compulsory retirement of a District and Sessions Judge, holding that the order was vitiated by “illegality, impropriety and mala fide in law” as it rested on unsubstantiated adverse remarks recorded during the last five months of his career.

The assertion came as the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry allowed Dr Shiva Sharma’s petition against the 2011 retirement order passed by the Haryana Governor on the high court’s recommendation. Senior advocate SK Garg Narwana and counsel Arav Gupta appeared for the petitioner.

The Bench observed “irrelevant material of the adverse remarks” recorded by the then Administrative Judge Justice Alok Singh were further taken into account by ignoring the fact that an officer who had earned ‘good’ or ‘very good’ remarks throughout his service career of 30 years could not overnight become bad to the extent of rendering his ‘integrity doubtful’.

“No man of ordinary prudence can take a such decision…The competent authority in all probability did not notice the element of mala fide in law, which became palpable in the present case, especially on the administrative judge’s part, who recorded adverse remarks in the last five months of the petitioner’s ACR.”

The controversy arose in the appraisal year 2010-11, where no remarks could be recorded from April to October 2010 owing to the then Administrative Judge’s transfer to the Madras High Court. The new Administrative Judge, Justice Alok Singh, who took charge from November 2010, carried out an inspection and recorded scathing remarks for the remaining five months, grading the petitioner as “C — Doubtful Integrity.”

The Bench added inconsequential remarks and the adverse entry of 2010-11 — “neither based on written complaints nor on verified material or any covert or overt inquiry" — was relied upon. The petitioner was designated District and Sessions Judge in 2009 after scrutiny of his ACRs and interaction with a committee of senior judges. “Whatever sting or adverse effect remained in the ACRs, prior to such designation, became redundant,” the Bench observed.

The court added the least the then Administrative Judge ought to have done was to conduct a covert vigilance inquiry, asking for the petitioner’s response. “If such an inquiry would have revealed some prima facie material of petitioner having committed misconduct, then proper course would have been to initiate a regular inquiry… None of these steps were adopted. Instead, the short-cut method was adopted by declaring the petitioner to be unfit to be retained in service at the age of 58 years.”

The court restored all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including notional seniority, pay fixation, and arrears of pension—though not salary for the period out of service.