JUDGMENT
M. Katju and Krishna Kumar,
JJ.
1. Heard Shri Murlidhar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Ambwani. learned counsel for High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petitioner is the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mirzapur.
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned adverse entry awarded to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge of this Court for the year 1995-96, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which has been approved by the Administrative Committee.
3. In paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that there is no earlier adverse entry against the petitioner regarding his judicial work. Even for the year 1995-96, the District Judge, Mirzapur recommended a ‘good’ entry to the petitioner. However, the Hon’ble inspecting Judge has passed the following entry :
“The outturn of work given by him is 112.79 per cent, but this has been achieved by applying shortcuts. In fact he is a great work-shirker. Though he has put in about
161/2 years of service, he has not learnt anything. He is whimsical, callous and completely lacks a sense of judicial responsibility and legal acumen. The District Judge has rated him as “good” but on reading several of his judgments, I found him utterly incompetent and unwilling. My overall assessment of this officer is “Extremely Poor” (For details see note attached, copy of which be supplied to the officer with the communication of adverse remarks).
His erratic judicial behaviour, makes his integrity doubtful.”
4. We have carefully perused the entry given by the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge. It makes sweeping generalisations, which in our opinion were not justified. In awarding the entry “Extremely Poor”, the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge has only relied upon certain orders passed by the petitioner in judicial cases and has stated that this makes his integrity’ doubtful.
5. We have also carefully perused the note made by the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge copies of which are annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. We do not agree that the note prepared by the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge justified granting the adverse entry to the petitioner. For example in Suit No. 188 of 1995, the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge observed that the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu-Marriage Act was not decided properly. In this connection, it may be pointed out that only the husband filed petition. The wife did not appear along with the husband to file the petition nor was it signed by the wife. Six months time had not elapsed between filing the divorce petition and passing the order, and this was regarded by the Hon’ble inspecting Judge as an irregularity. Here it may be mentioned that since the wife’s signature had not been made on the divorce petition, the petitioner treated this petition as under Section 13 and not as under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Moreover, the wife had given her evidence and the case was decided on merits. Therefore, the petition appears to have been decided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Moreover, neither the husband nor the wife moved any application for recalling of the said order. Four of the other orders in question are ex parte orders in which no application for recalling the order was moved nor any appeal/revision filed against them. The other four orders were decided on merits and no appeal or review was filed against the said orders. In only one order in question, a second appeal is pending in this Court since the First Appeal was dismissed. In one case decided on 23.3.1996, the defendant did not pursue the appeal against the decree for specific performance and executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
6. In this connection, we would like to point out the difficulties and adverse circumstances in which the Judges of the subordinate judiciary in this State are functioning. Against the norm of 300 cases which each Judge is supposed to have in fact most Judges have about 3.000 to 5,000 cases pending in their Courts. Against the norm of 75 sessions trial, about 600 to 700 or even more sessions trials are pending in many sessions courts. Apart from this, Judges of the subordinate judiciary are not provided with sufficient and proper facilities for discharging their duties. If proper and sufficient facilities are provided to the Subordinate judiciary, we may expect high quality judgments but the truth is that the members of the Subordinate judiciary are not provided with proper facilities and they have to carry a load 10 to 15 times greater than the normal load. A large number of Courts are lying vacant and the other Courts have to carry this extra load. The number of the Judges has to be greatly increased if high quality justice is required from them.
7. In our opinion, if certain orders of the petitioners were not as good as they should have been, the District Judge could have been told to instruct the officer orally to be more
careful, but it is not proper in our opinion to give an adverse entry in such a case, which will adversely affect the career of the petitioner. If adverse entry is given in such cases, in our opinion, the Judges shall not be able to decide cases freely.
8. Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel appearing for the High Court informed us that when the petitioner’s case came to the Administrative Committee, the Administrative Committee requested the new Hon’ble Inspecting Judge to watch the work of the petitioner. The new Hon’ble Inspecting Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. C. Gupta) has given a report in favour of the petitioner. Copy of the said report dated 6.8.1997 be kept on record. The Hon’ble Inspecting Judge has at the end of the report observed. “From the above examination, it would appear that the officer concerned has passed the orders in the discharge of his judicial function and there is neither any report of the learned District Judge nor any complaint that the said orders were passed for monetary gain or for extraneous consideration.
In my assessment, the work and conduct of the officer is satisfactory.”
9. Thereafter, both these reports were placed before the Administrative Committee but the Administrative Committee upheld the entry given by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. C. Agarwal (the previous Inspecting Judge of the said District).
10. We respectfully disagree with both Hon’ble M. C. Agarwal, J., as well as the Administrative Committee of the High Court in this connection.
11. In our opinion, 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 are working and only in extreme cases where there is total lack of Integrity, or 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.
12. In this connection, reference may be made to the Supreme Court’s decision in Maniyeri Madhuvan v. Sub-Inspector of Police, AIR 1994 SC 1033, where in somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court observed :
“We are. however, impelled, to remind the learned Judge of the High Court that however anguished he might have been over the unmerited ball granted to the accused, he should not have allowed himself the latitude of ignoring judicial precaution and propriety even momentarily. The higher Courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. That is one of the functions of the superior courts. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions. A Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity. While doing so. sometimes, he is likely to err. It is well said that a Judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. And that applies to Judges at all levels from the lowest to the highest. Sometimes, the difference in view of the higher and the lower courts is purely a result of a difference in approach and perception. On such occasion, the lower courts are not necessarily wrong and the higher courts always right. It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to improper motive. It is possible that a particular judicial officer may be consistently passing orders creating a suspicion of judicial conduct which is not wholly or even partly attributable to
innocent functioning. Even in such cases, the proper course for the higher court to adopt is to make note of his conduct in the confidential record of his work and to use it on a proper occasion. The Judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when Judges at the lower level are criticised in temperately and castigated publicly. No greater damage can be done to the administration of justice and to the confidence of the people in the judiciary when the Judges of the higher courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate judges for one reason or the other. It must be remembered that the officers against whom such strictures are publicly passed, stand condemned for ever in the eyes of their subordinates and of the members of the public. No better device can be found to destroy the judiciary from within. The Judges must, therefore, exercise self-restraint. There are ways and ways of expressing disapproval of the orders of the subordinate courts but attributing motives to them is certainly not one of them. That is the surest way to take the Judiciary downhill.”
13. Similarly, in Kashi Nath Roy
v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 3240. the Supreme Court observed :
“It cannot be forgotten that in our system, like elsewhere, appellate and revisional courts have been set up on the presupposition that lower courts would in some measure of cases go wrong in decision making, both on facts as also on law, and they have been knit up to correct those orders. The human element in justicing being an important element, computer-like functioning cannot be expected of the Courts ; however, hard they may try and keep themselves precedent trodden in the scope of discretions and in the manner of judging. Whenever any such intolerable error is detected by or pointed out to a superior court, it is functionally required to correct that
error that may. here and there, in an appropriate case, and in a manner befitting, maintaining the dignity of the Court and independence of Judiciary, convey its message in its Judgment to the officer concerned through a process of reasoning. essentially persuasive, reasonable, mellow but clear and result-orienting, but rarely as a rebuke. Sharp reaction of the kind exhibited in the afore-extraction is not in keeping with institutional functioning. The premise that a Judge committed a mistake or an error beyond the limits of tolerance, is no ground to inflict condemnation on the Judge-Subordinate, unless there existed something else and for exceptional grounds. We should, therefore, think, without much ado, that the High Court was unkind to the appellant and. therefore, the afore-paragraph deserves to be and is hereby pulled out from the orders of the High Court dated 28.1.1993 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12034 of 1991 titled Lala Pandey v. State of Bihar and 3 others, decided by the High Court of Patna, as well as all other references in the said order which tell upon the functioning of the appellant.”
14. In the circumstances, this
petition is allowed. The order of
Administrative Committee dated
24.10.1997 and the adverse entry
given by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. C.
Agarwal are hereby quashed. No order
as to costs.