JUDGMENT M. Katju and Krishna Kumar, JJ.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the annual remark against the petitioner for the year 1995-96 as communicated by the High Court through his letter dated 27.3.97. Annexure-8 to the writ petition and for quashing the order dated 21.5.96, Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner was selected in P.C.S (Judicial) Examination, 1972 and at the relevant time, he was functioning as the Additional District Judge. Saharanpur. It appears that in 1995 two Misc. Appeals filed by one Navin Kumar Jain and others were pending in the Court of the petitioner. These appeals were withdrawn from the petitioner's Court by the respondent No. 3 who was at that time Incharge District Judge, Saharanpur. It appears that in connection with one of these appeals being Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1992. the petitioner wrote a letter to the Incharge District Judge, Saharanpur. dated 1.1.95. Annexure-3 to the petition. In this letter, he described Navin Kumar Jain as a cunning and litigious person who makes false allegations for his self interest. It may be mentioned that this was a confidential letter and one cannot understand how this was leaked out to others. In the report of the District Judge, Saharanpur, dated 25.3.96 to the High Court, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it has been mentioned that the complainant wants to exercise undue influence over other judicial officers and hence got the cases transferred by making false and frivolous allegations. The District Judge also mentioned that he made oral enquiry from the counsel who told the District Judge that the complainant is a regular visitor in court and conducts cases personally. He is also involved in a criminal case under Section 420/467/468, I.P.C. The District Judge also mentioned that the words used by the petitioner unhappily crept into the letter, and these words were not intended for publication. The complainant only wanted to put undue influence over other judicial officers before whom various cases are pending. The District Judge observed that the complaint is false and frivolous. However, thereafter an order was passed on 21.5.96 administering the warning to the petitioner copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. True copy of adverse remarks is Annexure-6 to the petition.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the High Court and we have perused the same. In our opinion, the adverse remark/warning should not have been given to the petitioner. The District Judge in his report dated 25.3.96. Annexure-4 to the petition had already observed that the complaint against the petitioner is false and frivolous and the complainant only wanted to exercise undue influence on the Judicial officers of the district Judgeship. It was also observed therein that the petitioner's letter was not meant for publication. We are fully in agreement with the aforesaid report of the letter of the District Judge. The disposal of the petitioner was 128% and his integrity has been certified in the annual remarks. Hence, in our opinion the adverse remark/warning was uncalled for and unjustified.
4. In S. P. Misra V. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 1999 ACJ 927, this Court has held that the adverse entry should not have been given against the petitioner. This Court should not be too harsh to Judges of the subordinate Judiciary and should take into account the tremendous difficulties and pressures under which they were working and only in extreme cases where there is total lack of integrity or where there is some other serious allegation which is found true that the Court should give an adverse entry, because adverse entry given too readily spoils the career of a Judge and causes demoralisation in the subordinate Judiciary. This Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. P. Tewari v. State of M. P., AIR 1994 SC 1031 and Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 3240 took a similar view. A division bench of this Court in Shatleshwar Nath Singh v. High Court, Writ Petition No. 43748 of 1997. decided on 11.8.99. A similar view was also taken by this Court In J. S. P. Singh v. High Court, Writ Petition No. 38599 of 1996 decided on 17.8.99. In Sarnam Singh v. High Court. Writ Petition No. 21324 of 1997, decided on 16.7.98, a division bench of this Court considered the question whether on the judicial side, this Court could quash an entry given by the Court on the administrative side, and held that it could. The division bench relied on Wade's Administrative Law', and the Wednesday principle of reasonableness for reaching to Its conclusion.
5. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.3.97 so far as it contains remarks against petitioner and the order dated 21.5.96 are quashed. No order as to costs.