BHARAT RAM MEENA versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND ORS .

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 29-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
BHARAT RAM MEENA 
A 
_, 
"'-~· 
v. 
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND ORS . 
... 
JANUARY 29, 1997 
[A.M. AHMADI, C.J., AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Annual Confidential Report-Adverse remarks-Judicial review 
of-Held: Adverse remarks neither arbitra1y nor without any factual basis-In c 
the circumstances of the case, such adverse remarks could not be quashed in 
exercise of writ jurisdiction. 
Annual Confidential Report-Adverse remarks-Judicial review 
of-Disputed questions of fact-Writ jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held: In the 
circumstances of the case, not wmranted Constitution of India, 1950: Article D 
226. 
~~; 
Disputed questions of fact-Writ jurisdiction-Exercise of-Refusal of 
High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction upheld. 
In the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant, a Munsiff/Judi-
E 
cial Magistrate, the District and Sessions Judge made adverse remarks 
that the appellant's integrity was suspicious, he was not impartial, he was 
short temper~d, his official conduct was not upto the mark, he lacked 
proper control over the office work, he was an irresponsible officer and he 
~. 
did not enjoy a good reputation about honesty. The Inspecting Judge F 
-I 
remarked, "I agree with the DJ. Members of Bar also have poor opinion 
about his conduct and work." The Chief Justice of the High Court agreed 
with the report and observed " ....... There is nothing to differ from these 
observations, which I endorse and remark that he is a bad officer'. The 
appellant's representation against the adverse remarks was rejected. The 
appellant was in the meantime promoted as Civil Judge/Chief Judicial G 
Magistrate. The writ petition challenging the aforesaid adverse remarks 
was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
·'. 
-4 
.. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELff: 1. The appellant has raised several disputed questions of H 
673 
i 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. i 
A fact. The Annual Confidential Report was written on the basis of allega-
tions made against the appellant by the District Judge. The appellant had 
..,. "" 
his opportunity to make representation against the report, which he did. 
The appellant is to be judged on the strength of his work and his conduct. 
The assessment of the merit of the appellant cannot be treated in any way 
B as arbitrary or without any factual basis. Nothing has been brought on 
record to justify the Court in 1~xercise of its writ jurisdiction to intervene 
and quash the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the 
appellant. (678-F-G] 
2. The appellant's grievance is that the High Court should not have 
C summarily dismissed the writ pdition, but should have examined the facts 
in detail. There are allegations against the appellant, which have been 
denied by him. But it is a matter appreciation of evidence. The Writ Court 
rightly declined to enter into the controversy. [678-H, 679-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 456 of 
D 1997. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.95 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 5712 of 1993. 
Pallav Shishodia and AP. Medh for the Appellant. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Rajasthan 
High Court on a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing some 
adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1990. 
The controversies raised by the appellant in this case are really questions· 
of fact. The appellant Bharat Ram Meena was appointed as Munsiff/Judi-
G cial Magistrate on probation for two years on 19.7.1985. The appellant was 
. duly confirmed and later on posted as Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, 
District Balotra. In the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 the appellant discharged 
the duties as Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate, Barmer Satisfactorily. It has been 
stated by the appellant that Shri Satya Prakash Pathak, the ·then District 
H and Sessions Judge, Balotra had found the appellant's work satisfactory 
B.R MEENAv. RAJ.H.C. [S.C. SEN,J.] 
675 
and the Annual confidential Reports had been written accordingly. 
A 
General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of State of Rajasthan 
were held on 27.2.1990. The appeJ!ant was deputed as Zonal Magistrate 
for the purpose of election to the State Assembly. On 20.2.1990, a wireless 
message had been issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court to the 
Election 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.