Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (5) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... D.K. Agarwal, who was a member of the Higher Judicial Service under the State of U.P., to be precise, the District and Sessions Judge, Gonda, and since retired on February 29, 1985, was entitled to the super-time scale. The appellant was appointed to the post of District and Sessions Judge on October 31, 1983. In or about December. 1985, the Selection Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and consisting of three Judges of that Court recommended the grant of selection grade to the appellant on the basis of merit as required under Rule 27 of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The Full Court approved the recommendation for the grant of the selection .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urt at the meeting held on May 16. 1987, an adverse entry for the year 1986-87 was recorded by S.K. Dhaon, J. On July, 9 1987 as follows: He creates trouble. He fomented a conflict between the members of the Bar and the subordinate staff of the courts in Kanpur Nagar which ultimately resulted in the transfer of Sri Arjan Dev Mahajan, the then District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. This was done with an ulterior motive. He also instigated the subordinate staff of the courts in Kanpur Dehat to make agitations from time to time on the question of bifurcation of the staff between the courts at Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat. His integrity too is highly doubtful, hence not certified. His work and conduct should be kept under constant gaze . It s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ilosopher and guide, and to Mr. D.K. Agarwal, a most compe- tent and efficient administrator, who has helped us a lot to create cordial atmosphere between Bar and Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated December l0, 1987, noticed the remarks of the Chief Justice about the appellant as made by him in-his said minutes dated July 14, 1987. The Division Bench quashed the resolution dated January 17, 1987, of the Full Court and directed that an opportunity should be given by the Court to the appellant of explaining the imputations made against him by the Administrative Judge in his letter sent to the Chief Justice just on the eve of the Full Court Meeting held on January 17, 1987. Further, it was directed that the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not mean granting of the relief which the High Court is entrusted to grant in its administrative jurisdiction. All that the Court will ordinarily do is to refer back the matter for reconsideration of the High Court. In the instant case, however, we consider that for ends of justice we should interfere by disposing of the matter finally, that is to say, without referring it again to the High Court for the reasons stated hereafter. The letter of Dhaon, J. referred to above was handed over to the Chief Justice by Dhaon, J. just on the eve of the Full Court Meeting held on January 17, 1987. In that letter, certain serious allegations were made by Dhaon, J. against the appellant solely on the basis of what a retired Judge of the High Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation on the face of the minutes of the Chief Justice. In this connection, we may refer to the proviso to Rule 4(B) of the Rules which inter alia. reads as follows: Provided that adverse remarks or strictures made by Administrative Judges about the judicial work and conduct of any officer of subordinate judiciary will be placed before the Chief Justice before issue. The rule requires that before an adverse remark is communicated to the concerned judicial officer, it must be placed before the Chief Justice and, in our opinion, by necessary implication, the rule requires concurrence of the Chief Justice for taking action on the adverse remark by communicating the same to the judicial officer concerned. In the instant case, the adv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates