New Delhi: A Haryana civil judge, who was made to retire from service in 2007 after a poor performance report, has moved the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement and quashing of the report.
Anil Gaur, a former senior division judge in Panchkula, has claimed that he is a victim of collusion between a lawyer and an administrative judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Panchkula division) that resulted in his poor Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
The administrative judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is now a sitting Supreme Court judge.
An ACR is a report that’s prepared by a high court under Article 235 of the Constitution, which empowers it to maintain administrative and disciplinary control over officers of the superior and subordinate judicial services. The report is a result of periodical and annual inspections to assess the capability and integrity of a judicial officer, and impacts the career of a judge.
It is the administrative judge of a high court who oversees the conduct of the subordinate judges and provides inputs for the ACR.
During a hearing Tuesday before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, Gaur said he held no grudges against the administrative judge.
“This lawyer, Mukesh Mittal, was reprimanded by me in court. For this reason, he, in collusion with the administrative judge, is harming my career,” Gaur said.
To which, Justice Gavai asked, “You said you had no grudge against the judge?”
Gaur then said that Mittal had filled the administrative judge “with so much venom” that even a FIR was registered against him by the judge.
Counsel for the state of Punjab and Haryana then said that these were serious allegations, especially since an ACR report is vetted by two committees of judges and two retired Chief Justices of India.
The bench told Gaur that he should make the then administrative judge a party to the case. “We cannot allow you to allege malafide against a judge on the basis of your suspicion,” CJI Bobde said.
The next hearing in the case will take place after four weeks.
Also read: Supreme Court to frame questions on religious discrimination against women
ACR report against Gaur
An ACR report, prepared by the inputs of the then administrative judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was filed in 2006-07.
It noted that Gaur’s “Quality of work” was “doubtful” and that he was “rude to advocates.” It also noted that Gaur had a “distracting personality leadership”.
It was on the basis of this ACR report that Gaur was made to retire from service.
Gaur, who received the report in April 2007, moved the high court committee that looks into the ACR report the following month. He pleaded that the adverse remarks be expunged and he be reinstated.
His representation was rejected in December 2007.
In 2010, a full court committee — an internal panel in which all judges of a high court are present — also rejected Gaur’s representation.
He then filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2012. The following year, this petition too was dismissed.
In its order, the high court too had asked Gaur to make the administrative judge a party to the case, saying else there could be no proceedings against him.
“We have no hesitation in recording that as ‘possibility of bias’ is a species of ‘bias’ similar in fact and consequence to a plea of malafide or bias, such a plea cannot be considered without a petitioner impleading the person said to have recorded the adverse report and passed orders actuated by the possibility of bias,” read the 2013 order.
Mittal’s defence
In 2018, Mittal, who was suffering from a life-threatening disease, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, claiming he had nothing to do with this case.
In the affidavit, that ThePrint has accessed, Mittal said he had spoken to the administrative judge “so that justice is given to Gaur”.
However, Mittal added, that the judge had told him “not to interfere” in the matter and that “he was not going to spare Gaur”.
Mittal died last year.
Also read: How Supreme Court saved Kaun Banega Crorepati from Rs 1 crore penalty
IAS misusing rules to save corrupt officers.
IAS Officers formed a committee to retire their subordinates and junior officers under Rule FR 56 (j). Rule is used to remove deadwood. But IAS committee members used this Rule to settle score with those who defended themselves and questioned the actions of their seniors. IAS Committee saved all corrupt juniors officers of other services who blindly supported them and bribed these IAS Committee members. Sycophant officers who were corrupt were saved under Rule 56(j) whereas others who hurt ego of these IAS officers unknowingly were retired as deadwood. It is a gross misuse of Rule by IAS committee Members and Modi Government blindly supporting them and to get Certificate that Modi Govt. is non-corrupt. All Corrupt officers are working along with IAS lobby even today. It is a mask being used by Modi Govt. and IAS officers that there is a Zero tolerance for Corruption. They are propagating injustice by retaining corrupt officers and removing sincere officers. Govt. must review all those decisions which IAS took to show that Modi Govt. is non-corrupt but caused injustice to sincere officers by misusing Rule 56.