Sujit Saurabh v. High Court of Delhi Through Its Registrar General

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

¶1The petitioner, a judicial officer with the Delhi Judicial Service, has filed the present petition being dissatisfied by the grades awarded to him for the years 2017, 2018 & 2019. He is also aggrieved by the annual confidential remarks communicated to him by memoranda dated

14.03.2019, 25.01.2021 & 08.10.2021, respectively. The petitioner also seeks implementation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sujata Kohli v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi:

(2018) 252 DLT 599 (DB) and the judgement of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.:

(1993) 4 SCC 288.

¶2The petitioner was awarded grade 'B' for the years in question. He made a representation for upgrading his grade for the years 2018, which was rejected.

¶3The present petition was taken up for hearing on 17.12.2021. On that date this Court had passed the following order:-

"1. Issue notice. Mr. Kapil Dutta accepts notice on

behalf of the High Court of Delhi.

¶2The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to seek the quashing of his Annual

Confidential Remarks for the years 2017, 2018 & 2019

communicated to him vide a Memoranda dated

14.03.2019, 25.01.2021 & 08.10.2021 respectively. The

grievance of the petitioner is that his representation

made on 20.02.2021, has been rejected without

assigning any reasons thereof. The petitioner seeks a

direction for re-appraisement of his performance for the

Assessment Years 2017, 2018 & 2019. He also seeks

implementation of the judgment of a Division Bench

of this Court in Sujata Kohli Versus Registrar General,

High Court of Delhi, (2018) 252 DLT 599 (DB), and

the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India

Judges' Association Versus Union of India,

(1993) 4 SCC 288. We may observe that the petitioner

has been graded "B" for all these years.

¶3Mr. Dutta – who appears on advance notice on

behalf of the respondent High Court of Delhi,

submits that so far as the year 2017 is concerned, the

petitioner has not made any representation till date.

Since the petitioner has that avenue available for him,

we deem it appropriate to direct that this writ

petition itself may be considered as a representation of

the petitioner for the year 2017 by the respondent, and `

the representation be decided as expeditiously as

possible in accordance with law.

¶4So far as the year 2018 is concerned, Mr. Dutta

informs us that the petitioner was awarded censure on

21.08.2018, which is a minor penalty. The effect of

the said penalty, though it may be relating to

incidents of earlier years, would impact the assessment

in the year in which the penalty is imposed.

¶5The respondents have produced the record

relating to inspection of the petitioner's work and

conduct for the year 2018, which shows that his work in

the first quarter was very good, and the same was

inadequate in the second, third and fourth quarters.

The censure was imposed upon him by way of

punishment in respect of two complaints: dated

14.03.2017 – of one Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, Chief

Manager, PNB Minto Road Branch, New Delhi

regarding misbehaviour, and the communication

dated 06.11.2017 of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, District &

Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi

alongwith the complaint dated Nil of HC Pradeep

regarding dereliction of duty. A departmental inquiry

under Rule 16(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was

undertaken for imposition of minor penalty, and the

Full Court vide a decision dated 01.08.2018 imposed a

penalty of censure upon the petitioner. At this

stage, we may observe that this fact has not been

disclosed by the petitioner in the present writ

petition, which was not expected of the petitioner

considering that he himself is a judicial officer and

would be aware of the fact that he has to come to the

Court with clean hands. In the light of the aforesaid,

we are not inclined to entertain the present writ

petition so far as petitioner's grading for the year 2018

is concerned.

¶6So far as the year 2019 is concerned, Mr. Dutta

states that the representation of the petitioner is still

pending consideration before the Committee, and a

decision thereon would be taken after hearing the

petitioner.

¶7In response to our query as to what is the status with

regard to implementation of the judgment of the

Division Bench in Sujata Kohli (supra) is concerned, we

are informed by Mr. Anil K. Jain – an Officer of the

High Court of Delhi, that the process of implementation

of the said judgment is underway. Considering the fact

that the judgment was rendered on 21.08.2018, and the

same is to operate prospectively, we are of the view

that the High Court should expedite the implementation

of the said judgment within the next three months. We

are informed that the Supreme Court has affirmed the

aforesaid judgment in Sujata Kohli Vs. Registrar

General High Court of Delhi (2020) 14 SCC 58,

decided 24.04.2020.

¶8List the matter on 05.05.2022 for reporting

further progress with regard to the consideration of

the petitioner's representation for the years 2017 &

2019, and also with regard to implementation of the

judgement in Sujata Kohli (supra) rendered by the

Division Bench."

¶4It is apparent from the above that this court found no reason to fault the grade awarded to the petitioner for the year 2018. At the material time, the petitioner's representation for upgrading his grade for the year 2019 was pending. The petitioner was also permitted to make a representation in respect of his grade for the year 2017.

¶5Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner's representations for the years 2017 and 2019 were considered by the Court and the same were rejected.

¶6The petitioner now seeks to assail the decision rejecting his representations. Insofar as the grade awarded to the petitioner for the year 2017 is concerned, this Court finds that there were complaints against the petitioner during the said year. One of the complaints related to his conduct and misbehavior, which was examined by the concerned Committee of this court. The Committee had also interacted with the petitioner. The concerned Committee did not escalate the complaint for initiating any disciplinary proceedings but decided to counsel the petitioner.

¶7The grade awarded to the petitioner was after considering various other factors. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty of censure in the year 2018, although the same was related to an earlier incident.

¶8There is no allegation that the petitioner's evaluation is malafide or capricious. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept that the petitioner's evaluation for the year can be interfered with in these proceedings

¶9Insofar as the year 2019 is concerned, the petitioner's disposal of cases was found to be inadequate in all four quarters. The petitioner had made a representation giving an explanation for inadequate disposals.

¶10The records indicate that the concerned Committee had also interacted with the petitioner and had recorded his request to treat his representation as a 'mercy petition.' The concerned Committee had found no justification for inadequate disposal and, accordingly, rejected the petitioner's representation for upgradation in the said year.

¶11This Court is informed that the petitioner has been awarded a higher grade in the year 2021 and the appraisal for the year 2020 is pending.

¶12We find no ground to interfere with the petitioner's assessment for the year 2017. 2018 & 2019.

¶13Insofar as the implementation of the decision of the Division Bench in Sujata Kohli v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi (supra) is concerned, this Court is informed that the concerned Committee has been formed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court to lay down the road map for the purpose of implementation of the said decision. It is expected that the said decision would be fully implemented shortly.

¶14In these circumstances, no orders are required to be passed in this regard.

¶15The petition is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

AMIT MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 31, 2023 Ch

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 31.012023 + W.P.(C) 14280/2021 & CM APPL. 45001/2021, 45002/2021 & 20307/2022 SUJIT SAURABH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Chandhiok & Mr. Varun Chandiok, Advs. versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta, SSC with Mr. Anuj Bhargava, Adv.. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN