# Sunil Kumar Singh III v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 53425 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-singh-iii-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50798
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Civil Judge (Junior
Division) - Adverse entry - Circular
dated 15.05.2007 provides that the
material which is sought to be relied
upon, for awarding the adverse entry
must be disclosed to the concerned
Officer - Non-compliance thereof made
the review application liable to be
allowed - In enquiry nothing adverse
was found against the petitioner - Effect
- Circular dated 19.05.2007 directs the
reporting authority to write Annual
Confidential Remarks of Judicial Officers
- Non-compliance - Effect - Held, once
the
complaints
made
against
the
petitioner were found untruthful, the
very basis for awarding adverse entry to
the petitioner has vanished. It would
thus be a travesty of justice to maintain
the
adverse
entry
awarded
to
the
petitioner even when the complaints
made against him were found untruthful
- High Court, after quashing the adverse
entry, directed to award promotion to
HJS Cadre with retrospective effect i.e.
UPHJS 2015. (Para 11, 29, 32, 34, 37
and 38)

B. Interpretation of Statute - Rule of
construction - Where the law prescribes
a thing to be done in a particular
manner, it can be done in that manner
alone
and
not
otherwise
-
Nazir
Ahmand's case relied upon (Para 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,993 of 53,633. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39993 for what follows._

244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

51. No order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 244
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BL RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ A No. 53425 of 2015

Sunil Kumar Singh III ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sri Ashok Khare,
Sri Ashok Kumar Nigam, Sri Vikas Budhwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manish Goyal, Sri Ashish Mishra

A. Service Law - Civil Judge (Junior
Division) - Adverse entry - Circular
dated 15.05.2007 provides that the
material which is sought to be relied
upon, for awarding the adverse entry
must be disclosed to the concerned
Officer - Non-compliance thereof made
the review application liable to be
allowed - In enquiry nothing adverse
was found against the petitioner - Effect
- Circular dated 19.05.2007 directs the
reporting authority to write Annual
Confidential Remarks of Judicial Officers
- Non-compliance - Effect - Held, once
the
complaints
made
against
the
petitioner were found untruthful, the
very basis for awarding adverse entry to
the petitioner has vanished. It would
thus be a travesty of justice to maintain
the
adverse
entry
awarded
to
the
petitioner even when the complaints
made against him were found untruthful
- High Court, after quashing the adverse
entry, directed to award promotion to
HJS Cadre with retrospective effect i.e.
UPHJS 2015. (Para 11, 29, 32, 34, 37
and 38)

B. Interpretation of Statute - Rule of
construction - Where the law prescribes
a thing to be done in a particular
manner, it can be done in that manner
alone
and
not
otherwise
-
Nazir
Ahmand's case relied upon (Para 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajendra Singh Verma (dead) through & ors.
Vs Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi); (2011)
10 SCC 1

2. Nazir Ahmad Vs King Emperor; AIR 1936
Privy Council 253

3. Writ A No. 60546 of 2015; Khaliquzzama Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 22.05.2017

4. Service Bench No. 6108 of 2017; Rajvir Singh
Vs Hon'ble Allahabad High Court Alld. Thru.
Registrar General & ors. decided on 01.10.2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. This writ petition under article 226
of the Constitution of India has been filed
for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of
annual confidential remarks awarded by the
District Judge, Ghaziabad to the petitioner
for the year 2013-14 (Annexure-2 to the
writ petition), the decision taken by
Administrative Committee of High Court
of
Judicature
at
Allahabad
as
communicated to the petitioner, vide letter
dated 1.6.2015, (Annexure- 4 to the writ
petition) rejecting representation of the
petitioner against the said adverse entry
inasmuch
as,
in
the
opinion
of
Administrative Committee, no illegality
was committed by the then District Judge
in awarding adverse entry to the petitioner
for
the
year,
2013-14,
as
well
as
communication dated 4.7.2015 (Annexure-
9 All. Sunil Kumar Singh III Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
245
6 to the writ petition), whereby the second
representation filed by petitioner against
the adverse entry awarded to him for the
year 2013-14, has also been rejected, but on
the ground of maintainability.

3. Record shows that the petitioner
Sunil Kumar Singh-III was selected by the
U.P. Public Service Commission for U.P.
Judicial Services in the year 2000. After
selection, petitioner was duly appointed as
Civil Judge, Junior Division and was
posted at Lucknow on 23.12. 2003. It is the
case of the petitioner that since his initial
appointment, his work and conduct has
always been appreciated by his superiors.
On account of above, petitioner has been
awarded good/very good entries in his
Annual Confidential Reports in his tenure
of service up to the period 2012-13. For
ready reference, the details of the same are
tabulated herein under:

Sl.
N
o.
Year Place
of
posting
Integr
ity
Ratin
g
Authority
1. 2003
-04
Lucknow Certifi
ed
Good Administrative
Judge
2. 2004
-05
Saharanpu
r
Certifi
ed
Good Adverse
remark
as
fair
was
expunged
by
Hon'ble Court as
per
information
communicated to
District
Judge
Saharanpur
vide
Registrar
Confidential D.O.
No. C. 130/Df.
(A)/2006
dated
23.2.2006.
3. 2005
-06
Saharanpu
r
Beyon
d
doubt
Good District Judge
4. 2006
-07
Saharanpu
r
Beyon
d
doubt
Good District Judge
5. 2007
-08
Saharanpu
r
Certifi
ed
Good Administrative
Judge
6. 2008
-09
Kanshiram
Nagar
Certifi
ed
Very
Good
Administrative
Judge
7. 2009
-10
Kanshiram
Nagar
Beyon
d doub
t
Very
Good
District Judge
8. 2010
-11
Kanshiram
Nagar
Beyon
d
doubt
Very
Good
District Judge
9. 2011
-12
Kanshiram
Nagar
Certifi
ed

Good Administrative
Judge
10
.
2012
-13
Ghaziabad Certifi
ed
Good Administrative
Judge
11
.
2013
-14
Ghaziaba
d
Doubt
ful
Avera
ge
Subject matter of
present
writ
petition
12
.
2014
-15
Pilibhit
Awaite
d
Await
ed
--

4. In the year 2013-2014, petitioner was
posted
as
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate at Ghaziabad. According to
petitioner, he had performed his duty to the
best of his ability, yet in the year 2013-14,
the then District Judge, Ghaziabad awarded
an adverse entry to petitioner for the said
period i.e. 2013-14, which is to the
following effect "Integrity doubtful" as
there are several complaints against the
petitioner.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
adverse entry awarded to petitioner, he
made a representation dated 10.10.2014
before
the
High
Court,
Allahabad.
According
to
the
learned
counsel
representing respondent 2, since the then
District
Judge,
Ghaziabad,
who
had
awarded aforementioned adverse entry to
petitioner, was elevated to the Bench of this
Court and also in view of the resolution
dated
01.10.1997
passed
by
the
Administrative Committee of this Court as
well as in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 3 Rule 4 of the High Court Rules,
the said representation of the petitioner was
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
placed before a Committee of the High
Court.
The
said
committee
upon
consideration of the representation of the
petitioner
made
the
following
recommendation:-

"The
officer
has
submitted
above mentioned representation dated
10.10.2014 against the adverse remarks
recorded by the then District Judge,
Ghaziabad (as Hon'ble Judge of this
Court) for the year 2013-14, reproduced
below:

"1(a) Integrity of the Officer
whether beyond doubt, doubtful or
positively lacking.
Note: If the officer's integrity is
doubtful or positively lacking, it
may be so stated with all relevant
facts,
reasons(s)
supporting
material.
Doubtful
There were several
complaints
2. Overall assessment of the merit
of the officer (outstanding, Very
Good, Good, Average, Poor)
Average

6.

Subsequent
to
above,
the
Administrative Committee of this Court
rejected the aforesaid representation filed
by the petitioner, vide undated Item Agenda
Number-20 of the meeting dated 1.6.2015.
The said decision was communicated to
petitioner by the Deputy Registrar of High
Court, vide his letter dated 1.6.2015. For
ready reference, the decision of the
Administrative
Committee
referred
to
above is extracted herein under:

"Agenda Item No. 20:

Representation dated 10.10.2014
of Shri Sunil Kumar Singh - III, the then
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad presently posted as Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Pilibhit.

"The
officer
has
submitted
above mentioned representation dated
10.10.2014 against the adverse remarks
recorded by the then District Judge,
Ghaziabad (as Hon'ble Judge of this
Court) for the year 2013-14, reproduced
below:-

"1(a) Integrity of the officer
whether beyond Doubtful. doubt, doubtful
or positively lacking. There were several
Note: If the officer's integrity is doubtful
or complaints. positively lacking, it may be
so stated with all relevant facts, reason(s)
& supporting material.

2. Overall assessment of the
merit of the officer Average (outstanding,
Very good, good, Average, Poor)

We
have
perused
the
representation of the officer, the ACR
recorded by the then District Judge (as
Hon'ble Judge of this Court) for the
relevant year.

The officer in his representation
has stated that the District Judge did not
send remarks in time, to the High Court
and no reason for delay has been
recorded. There is no material for
recording his integrity as doubtful. The
remarks have not been given in prescribed
proforma. The reporting officer has not
disclosed the nature and particulars of the
complaints. He has worked with utmost
devotion, sincerity and integrity and no
complaint was ever brought to his notice.
He has requested to expunge the adverse
remarks recorded by the District Judge,
Ghaziabad (Now Hon'ble Judge of Court)
for the year 2013-14.

We have been informed that a
Vigilance Enquiry no.13/2014 is also
pending against the officer.

The Committee is of the view
that the then District Judge, later on
elevated as the Hon'ble Judge of the High
Court, after witnessing the work and
conduct of the officer for the whole of the
year, has doubts about the integrity of the
officer, the same can not be said to be
9 All. Sunil Kumar Singh III Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
247
without
any
basis.
Therefore,
the
representation of the officer is devoid of
any force and is recommended to be
rejected.""

7. Subsequently, the petitioner made
another representation dated 10.10.2014
with the prayer that matter be placed before
Administrative Committee for considering
the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner
for the year 2013-2014 in the light of the
facts stated in the representation itself.
However, the said representation was not
considered on the ground that since the said
representation is second representation,
therefore, same is not maintainable. A
communication dated 4.7.2015 was sent to
petitioner regarding aforesaid. For ready
reference, the same is reproduced herein
under:

"I am desired to refer to the
representation dated 16.5.2015 of Sri
Sunil Kumar Singh-III the then A.C.J.M
Ghaziabad presently Civil Judge (Sr. Div).
Pilibhit against the adverse remarks
occurring in the annual confidential
remarks recorded by the then District
Judge, Ghzaiabad for the year 2013-14 as
well as for upgradation of his overall
assessment of merit and to say that on its
consideration, the Hon'ble Court has been
pleased
to
order
that
the
said
representation be filed as the same is not
enertainable in view of full Court
resolution dated 6.1.1990 being second in
nature.

Sri
Sunil Kumar
Singh-III,
aforesaid
may
kindly
be
informed
accordingly"

8. Thus feeling aggrieved by above,
petitioner has now approached this court by
means of present writ petition.

9. Instant writ petition came up for
admission on 17.9.2015 and this court
passed the following order:

"C.A. within a period of one
month.

R.A.
within
two
weeks
thereafter.

List
this
petition
for
admission/hearing
in
the
week
commencing 26 October 2015"

10. In compliance of above order
dated 17.9.2015, a counter affidavit has
been filed by the High Court, wherein the
claim of petitioner has been disputed.
Ultimately present writ petition came to be
dismissed, vide order dated 22.1.2020
passed by a Division Bench of this court
comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Sudhir
Agrawal and one of us Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Rajeev Misra. The order dated 22.1.2020
reads as under:

"1. Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar,
learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent.

2.
Petitioner
has
been
communicated adverse entry by District
Judge, Ghaziabad in Annual Confidential
Remark
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"ACR") for the period 01.04.2013 to
31.03.2014, and has withheld integrity of
petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that no specific reasons have
been given, but he could not dispute that
withholding
of
integrity
has
been
confirmed by Administrative Judge and
also
by
this
Court's
Administrative
Committee.

4.
Aforesaid
orders
having
become final, we do not find that there is
any reason to interfere with remarks given
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by District Judge, since, same stands
already endorsed by Administrative Judge
as well as Administrative Committee of
this Court. Moreover, aforesaid orders are
not under challenge in this petition.

5.
Dismissed
accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated. "

11.

Feeling
aggrieved
by
aforementioned order dated 22.1.2020,
petitioner filed a review petition seeking
review of the order dated 22.1.2020 and
same came to be registered as Review
Application No. 8 of 2020. The aforesaid
review application was nominated by
Hon'ble the Chief Justice to this Bench as
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. was not
available. The review application came to
be allowed by this court vide order dated
10.5.2023. The same reads as under:

"(Order
on
the
Review
Application)

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar
Nigam, the learned counsel for review
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel
representing Respondent 1 and Mr.
Rakesh Mishra, the learned counsel
representing Respondent 2.

2. This review petition has been
filed seeking review of the order dated
22.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench
comprising of their Lordships Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice
Rajeev
Mishra.
For
ready
reference,
the
above
order
dated
22.01.2020 is extracted hereinunder:-

"1. Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar,
learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent.

2.
Petitioner
has
been
communicated adverse entry by District
Judge, Ghaziabad in Annual Confidential
Remark
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"ACR") for the period 01.04.2013 to
31.03.2014, and has withheld integrity of
petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that no specific reasons have
been given, but he could not dispute that
withholding
of
integrity
has
been
confirmed by Administrative Judge and
also
by
this
Court's
Administrative
Committee.

4.
Aforesaid
orders
having
become final, we do not find that there is
any reason to interfere with remarks given
by District Judge, since, same stands
already endorsed by Administrative Judge
as well as Administrative Committee of
this Court. Moreover, aforesaid orders are
not under challenge in this petition.

5.
Dismissed
accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :- 22.1.2020"

3. Since His Lordship Hon'ble
Sudhir Agarwal J. is no longer available,
the present review petition has therefore,
been nominated by Hon'ble Chief Justice
to this Bench vide order dated 18.01.2021.
Accordingly, the aforementioned review
petition has come up before this Bench.

4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Nigam, the
learned counsel for review petitioner
submits that the order dated 22.01.2020 is
liable to be reviewed on the ground that
there are error apparent on the face of the
record. Elaborating his submission, he
submits that order under review is based
on an erroneous premise that the adverse
entry awarded to the review petitioner by
the District Judge was confirmed by the
Administrative Judge and also by the
Administrative Committee of the High
Court.
The
said
recital
has
been
contradicted by submitting that since the
District Judge who had awarded the
adverse entry to the review petitioner for
the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 was
9 All. Sunil Kumar Singh III Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
249
subsequently elevated to the Bench of this
Court and therefore, the matter was not
placed
before
the
Administrative
Committee.

5. He next submits that adverse
entry can be awarded to a judicial officer
but the same has to be inconsonance with
the circular dated 15.05.2007 issued by the
High Court which provides that the
material which is sought to be relied upon,
for awarding the adverse entry must be
disclosed
to
the
concerned
Officer.
However, the adverse entry was awarded
to the writ petitioner in derogation of the
above.

6. According to the learned
counsel for review petitioner, it is on
account of above that the Bench while
hearing the review petition on 11.07.2022
directed that the original record be placed.
On the above premise, he submits that
order under review is therefore, liable to
be reviewed by this Court.

7. Mr. Ashish Mishra, the
learned counsel representing High Court
has placed the original record before the
Bench. We have examined the same. On a
specific query raised by us as to whether,
the material relied upon by the District
Judge for awarding adverse entry to the
petitioner was disclosed to the review
petitioner or not, he has fairly submits
that the adverse entry has been awarded to
the review petitioner on the basis of
discrete inquiry conducted by the then
District Judge.

8. It is thus apparent that the
circular dated 15.05.2007 has not been
complied with by the District Judge while
awarding adverse entry to the review
petitioner for the period 01.04.2013 to
31.03.2014.

9. In view of the discussion made
above, the inescapable conclusion is that
the order under review suffers from errors
apparent on the face of the record. We
accordingly
review
the
order
dated
22.01.2020.

10.
The
review
petition
is
allowed.

11. Let the matter appear for
hearing on merits on 22.05.2023."

12. We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar
Nigam, the learned counsel for petitioner
and Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel
representing respondent 2.

13. Mr. Ashok Kumar Nigam, the
learned counsel for petitioner in support of
present writ petition submits that right from
the year 2003 up to 2013, the petitioner has
never been awarded an adverse entry. For
the first time in his carrier, the petitioner
was awarded an adverse entry in the year
2013-14. In support of above, he has
referred to the chart giving the details of
annual confidential remarks awarded to the
petitioner, which has already been extracted
in the preceeding part of this judgment.

14. According to the learned counsel
for petitioner, the Reporting Officer i.e. the
then District Judge handed over the charge
of his office on 2.2.2014, but the adverse
entry was awarded by him to the petitioner
on 10.9.2014 i.e after seven months of his
having relinquished the office.

15. With reference to Rule 5(2) of All
India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules,
1970, he submits that ordinarily, the annual
entry should have been awarded within the
period while the District Judge was still in
office or within a period of one month
thereafter. Reference was then made to
Rules 5(2) and 5(5) of the aforementioned
Rules and on basis thereof, it is sought to
be contended that since the then District
Judge, Ghaziabad, who had awarded
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adverse entry to the petitioner, had handed
over the charge on 02.02.2014, therefore,
he had no authority to write the annual
confidential
report
of
the
petitioner.
Similarly, reference was also made to
Chapter-8 of Rules 8.11 of the aforesaid
Rules in support of the submission that
even under the said Rules, it is provided
that Reporting Officer shall award the entry
within one month of his retirement or
demission of Office. However in the
present case, the Reporting Officer i.e. the
then District Judge, Ghaziabad had already
relinquished his office on 02.02.2014 and
therefore, he could not have awarded the
annual entry to the petitioner after expiry of
a period of seven months from the date he
relinquished his office i.e. on 10.09.2014.

16. Attention of the Court was then
invited to the circular letter No. 23 6F (C/
2007) dated 19.5.2007. The said circular
has
been
made
applicable
with
retrospective effect from 1.4.2007. The
same is on record at page 120 of the paper
book. The note appended to coloumn A of
head note 1 is relevant for the controversy
in
hand. Accordingly,
the
same
is
reproduced hereinunder:-

"a. Integrity of the Officer
whether beyond doubt, doubtful or
positively lacking.

NOTE: If the officer's integrity
is doubtful or positively lacking, it may
be so stated with all relevant facts,
reasons(s) & supporting material."

17. On the basis of aforesaid note
appended to column A of Head Note 1 of
the circular, it is contendned by the learned
counsel
for
petitioner
that
annual
confidential remarks for the year 2013-14
could have been awarded to the petitioner
only as per the norms provided in the
aforesaid circular itself.

18. With reference to above, he
submits that all relevant facts, reasons and
supporting material should have been
mentioned along with the entry so awarded
by the then District Judge to the petitioner.
However in the present case, the then
District Judge has simply awarded an
adverse entry to the petitioner, which is to
the following effect "Doubtful, There
were several complaints". Since the
adverse entry awarded to the petitioner for
the year 2013-14 is not in consonance with
the note appended to column 1A of the
circular dated 19.5.2007, as the material
particulars
are
conspicuous
by
their
absence, therefore, the said adverse entry
awarded to the petitioner is liable to be
quashed by this court.

19. It is further contended by the
learned counsel for petitioner that as per the
stand of respondent-2 as it explicit from the
written arguments submitted by the learned
counsel for respondent-2 and also the
record, it is evident that in respect of
complaints made against the petitioner, a
Vigilance Enquiry No. 13 of 2014 was
initiated. Subsequently, the same was
converted into Departmental Enquiry No.
06 of 2017. The Enquiry Officer submitted
his report dated 1.2.2019. Ultimately, the
enquiry proceedings were dropped, vide
order dated 21.3.2019, as none of the
complaints made against the petitioner was
found to to be true.

20. In the aforesaid conspectus, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for
petitioner that in view of the above noted
facts, the reason recorded by the then
District Judge for awarding an adverse
entry to the petitioner (several complaints
9 All. Sunil Kumar Singh III Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
251
were made) has since vanished as the
enquiry initiated against the petitioner on
the basis of the alleged complaints has
resulted in favour of petitioner. As such,
there was no truth in the complaints so
made against the petitioner. He thus
contended by submitting that when the very
basis of the adverse entry has vanished, the
adverse entry so awarded to the petitioner
cannot be sustained.

21. According to the learned counsel
for petitioner, on account of the adverse
entry awarded to petitioner for the year,
2013-14, which otherwise is manifestly
illegal, petitioner was denied promotion in
HJS Cadre for the year UPHJS 2015,
UPHJS 2016, UPSJS 2017, UPHJS 2018
and UPHJS 2018(II). Ultimately, the
petitioner was promoted in UPHJS 2018.
On the above premise, it is contended by
learned counsel for applicant that the
adverse entry awarded to petitioner for the
year, 2013-14 is subsequent to the circular
dated 19.5.2007 but neither the relevant
facts nor the supporting material has been
referred to nor any reason to withhold the
integrity of the petitioner on the basis of the
said material has been reported by
reporting officer i.e the then District Judge,
Ghaziabad in the Annual Confidential Roll,
as such, the adverse entry was awarded to
the petitioner in complete derogation of the
procedure
provided
for
awarding
an
adverse
entry
in
the
circular
dated
19.05.2007 by this Court. Consequently,
the same is illegal and therefore, liable to
be quashed.

22. Learned counsel for petitioner
also invited the attention of Court to the
resolution dated 1.10.1997 passed by the
Administrative Committee in its meeting
held on 1.10.1997. Since the said resolution
has material bearing in the present case,
accordingly, the same is extracted herein
under:

AGENDA
RESOLUTIONS
1.
Confirmation
of the minutes
of the meeting
of
the
Administrativ
e
Committee
held
on
21.9.1997
1. Considered the minutes of the
meeting
of
the
Administrative
Committee held on 21.9.1997 resolved
that the minutes be confirmed subject
to the following modification
(I) In item no. 12 the resolution shall
read.
"Resolved that in such a case the entry
in the character roll be recorded by the
Hon'ble Judge who was the District
Judge of the concerned District during
the relevant period and the said entry
will also be entry of the Court if any.
Representation is received against such
an entry then the matter will be placed
before the Administrative Committee
for consideration"

23. With reference to the record, the
learned counsel for petitioner submits that
since the Reporting Officer i.e the then
District
Judge,
Ghaziabad
was
subsequently appointed as a Judge of this
Court, therefore the adverse entry awarded
to the petitioner for the year 2013-14 was
not referred to the Administrative Judge
for
his
Approval.
Administrative
Committee has simply concurred with the
report of the Committee without recording
any finding in its resolution in the light of
the circular dated 19.05.2007. Learned
counsel for petitioner has also placed
before the Court, the chart appended along
with the written arguments supplied by the
learned counsel for opposite party- 2 along
with his written statement in respect of the
fact that most of the complaints made
against the petitioner, were found to be
untruthful and ultimately, they were
consigned to the record. For ready
reference,
the
aforesaid
chart
is
reproduced hereinunder:-

"Senior
Registrar
(Jud.)
(Conofidential)
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

May kindly see the status of the
complaints, received against Sri Sunil
Kumar
Singh-III,
while
posted
as
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III,
Ghaziabad in the period of 2013-2014 in
reference to requisition dated 11.05.2023
of Joint Registrar (litigation), placed
below.

Sr.
No.
File Number Particulars
Status
1.
S-394/1,
1A/2013
Complaint
dated
13.11.2013
alongwith
its
enclosures
made by Sri
Bhagwan
Gaud,
R/o
Shahbad
Mohammadpu
r, New Delhi,
Sri
Jitendra
Kumar Shah,
R/o
C-403,
Aditya
Garden
City,
Sector-6.
Vashudhara,
Ghaziabad,
and Ms. Saroj
Devi,
R/o
-
House No. 281,
Village
Shahbaj.
Mohammadpu
r. New Delhi,
against
Sri
Sunil
Kumar
ACIM-III,
Ghaziabad.
Complaint dated
13.11.2013
alongwith
its
enclosures made
by Sri Bhagwan
Gaud,
R/o
Shahbad
Mohammadpur,
New Delhi, Sri
Jitendra Kumar
Shah, R/o C-403,
Aditya
Garden
City,
Sector-6.
Vashudhara,
Ghaziabad, and
Ms. Saroj Devi,
R/o -House No.
281,
Village
Shahbaj.
Mohammadpur.
New
Delhi,
against Sri Sunil
Kumar
ACIMIII, Ghaziabad.
2.
X-23/43,
43A,
43B/2014
Letter
No.1/E.A./D.J.
/2014
dated
16.04.2014 and
Letter
No.
1655/1
dated
26.04.2015
sent
by
the
District Judge,
Ghaziabad
and
Letter
dated
19.04.2014
endorsed
by
the
District
Judge,
Vide order dated
30.04.2014
of
Hon'ble
the
Chief
Justice
entrusted
Vigilance
Enquiry
to
Special
Officer
(vigilance).
All
the
file
(In
original
were
sent to Special
Office (viglance)
on
12.05.2014,
17.05.2014
and
31.07.2014.
Ghaziabad
vide
endorsement
no.1526
XV
dated
19.04.2014
regarding
incident
of
road
raze
occurred
13.04.2014
lodged by Sri
Sunil
Kumar
Singh-III,
A.C.J.M.
Court No.-Ill,
Ghaziabad,
against
Sri
Surendra
Kumar, ASI of
Delhi
Police
and
Sarita
Bihar, DCP of
Delhi.
3.
S-394/1,
1A/2014
Counter
complaint
dated
18.04.2014
(with
enclosures)
moved by Smt.
Deep
Mala
Bakshi, wife of
Sri
Surender
Bakshi,
R/o
2/250.
Upper
Jatwara,
Mehrauli, New
Delhi, against
Sri
Sunil
Kumar SinghIII, A.C.J.MIII,
Ghaziabad,
regarding
criminal
misuse
of
judicial
powers.

4.
X-23/
71/2014
Representatio
n
dated
11.6.2014
(with
enclosures)
sent
by
Sri
Sunil
Kumar
Singh-III,
Civil
Judge
(S.D.), Pilibhit
duly endorsed
9 All. Sunil Kumar Singh III Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
253
by the District
Judge,
Pilibhit,
vide
endorsment
no.
1146/1
dated
12.06.2014,
addressed
to
Registrar
General
and
with
subject
representation
to expunge the
F.I.R.
5.
S-394/2,
2A,2B/2014
Complaint
dated
13.09.2014
made by Sri
Ravindra
Singh
Verma
Verma,
R/o
195
Chipiyana,
Ghautambudd
h
Nagar,
against
Sri
Sunil
Kumar
Singh-III, the
then
AC'MIII,
Ghaziabad, in
connection
with case no.
2547/2012
under section
156 (3) Cr.P.C
to
registered
an
F.I.R.
against
his
wife
Smt.
Suneeta Singh.
Consigned/close
d
vide
order
dated
nil
of
Hono'ble
the
Administrative
Judge,
Ghaziabad. (The
complaint
file
has been weeded
out in the light
of order dated
10.4.2014
of
Hon'ble
the
Chief
Justice-
the copy of the
said
order
is
enclosed
herewith)
6.
S-394/
3/2014
Letter
No.
3788/XV dated
11.08.2014
of
District judge,
Ghaziabad,
regarding
conduct of Sri
Sunil
Kumar
Singh-III, the
then
ACIMIII,
Ghaziabad,
reflecting
against him in
judicial
proceedings of
case
no.
511/2010
(crime
Consigned
to
record
vide
order
dated
25.03.2021
of
Hon'ble
the
Administrative
Judge,
Ghaziabad..
1906/2009)-
State
vs.
Rajeev Gupta
& others, u/s
420, 409, 506
1.P.C.,
P.S.
Sihani
Gate,
disposed off by
him
on
21.01.2014.
7.
S-394/
4/2014
Complaint
dated
02.07.2014
moved by Sri
Mehtaab
S/o
Sri
Haji
Shipedar
of
Islampur,
Thana
Bhawan,
Muzaffarnaga
r, against the
Sri
Sunil
Kumar SinghIII,
then
A.C.J.M.-III,
Ghaziabad
and
against
Sri
Arun
Kuamr Tyagi,
Chmaber no.
28,
Meerut,
regarding
allegedly
extorting
rupees
7,20,000/ from
his family for
releasing
complainant
from Jail in
case crime no.
898/13,
case
no.
3818/13-
state
vs.
mehtab, u/s 25
Arms Act, P.S.
Sihani
Gate,
Ghaziabad.
Consigned
to
record
vide
order
dated
19.9.2016
of
Hon'ble
the
Administrative
Judge,
Ghaziabad.
(The complaint
file
has
been
weeded out in
the light of order
dated 10.04.2014
of Hon'ble the
Chief
Justice--
the copy of the
said
order
is
enclosed
herewith)
8.
S-394/
6/2014
Unsigned
complaint
dated
20.09.2014 and
04.10.2014,
jointly moved
by Sri Ramesh
Kumar,
Sri
Narendra
Yadav and Sri
Kishan
Pal
Consigned
to
record
vide
order
dated
10.03.2015
of
Hon'ble
the
Administrative
Judge,
Ghaziabad.
(The complaint
file
has
been
weeded out in
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Arya, against
Sri
Sunil
Kumar SinghIII,
the
the
then A.C.J.M.-
III,
Ghaziabad,
regarding
corruption.
the light of order
dated 10.04.2014
of Hon'ble the
Chief
Justice--
the copy of the
said
order
is
enclosed
herewith)

Report is accordingly submitted.

Therefore, may if approved by your
goodself, the aforesaid status alongwith
the relevant documents may be sent to
Joint Registrar (Litigation) for onward
necessary action."

24. It is thus urged by learned counsel
for
petitioner
that
surprisingly,
the
Administrative committee of High Court
while considering the representation of
petitioner has not adverted to aforesaid
aspect of the matter, which has vitiated the
decision
taken
by
Administrative
Committee as most of the complaints made
against
petitioner
had
already
been
consigned
to
record.
Consequently,
decision taken by the Administrative
Committee is not the outcome of diligent
exercise of discretion with reference to the
material on record. The Administrative
Committee is a casual and cavalier fashion
has rejected the representation of the
petitioner. As such, the same is wholly
arbitrary, therefore, the same can not be
sustained, hence liable to be quashed by
this Court.

25. The claim of petitioner has,
however, been vehemently opposed by Mr
Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for
respondent-2. He submits that it is true that
the mandate of the circular dated 19.5.200
was not complied with by the then District
Judge, concerned inasmuch as the relevant
facts and supporting material have neither
been referred to in the Annual Confidential
Roll of the petitioner nor they were
disclosed to the petitioner nor any reason in
the light of the same has been recorded.
However, the fact remains that the decision
was taken by the immediate superior of the
petitioner i.e. Reporting Officer/the then
District Judge, Ghaziabad. The opinion
formed by Reporting Officer cannot be
impugned and castigated in the light of the
submissions urged by learned counsel for
petitioner. He being the immediate superior
of the petitioner and others can form
opinion against his subordinates on the
basis of other material also which may
come to his knowledge. Therefore, the
impugned adverse entry awarded to the
petitioner cannot be faulted on the
submission urged by the learned counsel
for petitioner as noted above. To buttress
his submission, he has placed reliance upon
the judgement of Supreme Court in
Rajendra Singh Verma (dead) through
and Others vs. Lieutenant Governor
(NCT of DELHI), (2011) 10 SCC 1. Much
emphasis has been laid on paragraphs 190
to 193 of the report, which are, accordingly,
extracted herein below:

190. As observed by this Court in
R.L. Butail v. Union of India [(1970) 2
SCC 876] it is not necessary that an
opportunity
of
being
heard
before
recording
adverse
entry
should
be
afforded to the officer concerned. In the
said case, the contention that an inquiry
would be necessary before an adverse
entry is made was rejected as suffering
from a misapprehension that such an
entry amounts to the penalty of censure. It
is explained by this Court in the said
decision that: (SCC p. 876)

"(ii) ... Making of an adverse
entry is not equivalent to imposition of a
penalty which would necessitate an
enquiry or the giving of a reasonable
9 All. Sunil Kumar Singh III Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
255
opportunity
of
being heard
to
the
government servant concerned."

191. Further, in case where the
Full Court of the High Court recommends
compulsory retirement of an officer, the
High Court on the judicial side has to
exercise great caution and circumspection
in setting aside that order because it is a
complement of all the Judges of the High
Court who go into the question and it is
possible that in all cases evidence would
not
be
forthcoming
about
integrity
doubtful of a judicial officer. As observed
by this Court in High Court of Punjab &
Haryana v. Ishwar Chand Jain [(1999) 4
SCC 579 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 881] , at
times, the Full Court has to act on the
collective wisdom of all the Judges and if
the general reputation of an employee is
not good, though there may not be any
tangible material against him, he may be
given compulsory retirement in public
interest and judicial review of such order
is permissible only on limited grounds.
The reputation of being corrupt would
gather thick and unchaseable clouds
around the conduct of an officer and gain
notoriety much faster than the smoke.
Sometimes there may not be concrete or
material evidence to make it part of the
record.
It
would,
therefore,
be
impracticable for the reporting officer or
the competent controlling officer writing
the confidential report to give specific
instances of shortfalls, supported by
evidence.

192. Normally, the adverse entry
reflecting on the integrity would be based
on formulations of impressions which
would be the result of multiple factors
simultaneously playing in the mind.
Though the perceptions may differ, in the
very nature of things there is a difficulty
nearing an impossibility in subjecting the
entries in the confidential rolls to judicial
review.
Sometimes,
if
the
general
reputation of an employee is not good
though there may not be any tangible
material
against
him,
he
may
be
compulsorily retired in public interest.
The duty conferred on the appropriate
authority to consider the question of
continuance of a judicial officer beyond a
particular age is an absolute one. If that
authority bona fide forms an opinion that
the integrity of a particular officer is
doubtful, the correctness of that opinion
cannot be challenged before courts. When
such a constitutional function is exercised
on the administrative side of the High
Court, any judicial review thereon should
be made only with great care and
circumspection and it must be confined
strictly to the parameters set by this Court
in several reported decisions. When the
appropriate authority forms bona fide
opinion that compulsory retirement of a
judicial officer is in public interest, the
writ court under Article 226 or this Court
under Article 32 would not interfere with
the order.

193. Further, this Court in M.S.
Bindra case [(1998) 7 SCC 310 : 1998
SCC (L&S) 1812] has used the phrase
"preponderance of probability" to be
applied before recording adverse entry
regarding integrity of a judicial officer.
There is no manner of doubt that the
authority which is entrusted with a duty of
writing ACR does not have right to tarnish
the reputation of a judicial officer without
any basis and without any "material" on
record, but at the same time other equally
important
interest
is
also
to
be
safeguarded
i.e.
ensuring
that
the
corruption does not creep in judicial
services and all possible attempts must be
made to remove such a virus so that it
should not spread and become infectious.
When even verbal repeated complaints are
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
received against a judicial officer or on
enquiries, discreet or otherwise, the
general impression created in the minds of
those making inquiries or the Full Court
is that judicial officer concerned does not
carry good reputation, such discreet
inquiry and/or repeated verbal complaints
would constitute material on the basis of
which ACR indicating that the integrity of
the officer is doubtful can be recorded.
While undertaking judicial review, the
Court in an appropriate case may still
quash the decision of the Full Court on
administrative side if it is found that there
is no basis or material on which the ACR
of the judicial officer was recorded, but
while undertaking this exercise of judicial
review and trying to find out whether
there is any material on record or not, it is
the duty of the Court to keep in mind the
nature of function being discharged by the
judicial officer, the delicate nature of the
exercise to be performed by the High
Court
on
administrative
side
while
recording
the
ACR
and
the
mechanism/system adopted in recording
such ACR.

27. On the above premise, the learned
counsel for respondent-2 contends that no
illegality can be attached to the decision
taken by the then District Judge, Ghaziabad
in awarding adverse entry to the petitioner.
As such, no interference is warranted by
this Court in the present writ petition.
Consequently, the present writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.

28. Having heard the learned counsel
for
petitioner,
and
learned
counsel
representing
respondent
2,
upon
consideration of the material on record as
well as the submissions made, the solitary
issue which arises for determination in this
writ petition is whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the adverse entry
awarded to the petitioner cannot be
sustained in view of the note appended to
column 1A of the circular dated 19.5.2007
or the same can be sustained as per the
mandate of the Supreme Court expressed in
the case of Rajendra Singh Verma
(Supra).

29. There is no dispute between the
parties that the procedure regarding writing
of Annual Confidential Remarks of Judicial
Officers was crystallized by this Court vide
circular dated 19.05.2007. The said circular
is not directory but mandatory as it directs
the reporting authority to write Annual
Confidential Remarks of Judicial Officers
as per the circular itself. It is by now well
settled that where the law prescribes, a
thing to be done in a particular manner, it
can be done in that manner alone and not
otherwise. This was held way back in 1936
in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King
Emperor, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253.
The same view has been reiterated time and
again and we need not burden our judgment
with multiple judgments on the said issue.

30. Apart from above, there is another
aspect of the matter which has been clearly
ommitted
by
the
learned
counsel
representing respondent 2.