Punjab & Haryana HC slams its former judge for adverse remarks that led to compulsory retirement of district judge

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called out its former judge, Justice Alok Singh, for making adverse remarks against a judicial officer who had consistently received "good" or "very good" performance evaluations throughout his entire service [Shiva Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Another]..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry found that the adverse remarks written in the last five months of the appraisal year 2010-2011 were not based on any written complaints, verified material or inquiry; rather they were founded on unsubstantiated material or allegations."No man of ordinary prudence can take a such decision, and, therefore, the impugned decision assailed herein abhorrent to the Wednesbury principle," the order stated..Following the adverse remarks, District & Sessions Judge Dr Shiva Sharma, who had been in service since 1981, was compulsorily retired in 2011 at the age of 58 years on the recommendation of the High Court. He challenged the same in 2012.As the administrative judge of Sirsa district, Justice Singh in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) had categorised Sharma as ‘doubtful category’ officer and remarked that he enjoyed one of the worst possible reputations. Justice Singh also recorded that Sharma indulged in discriminatory practices in recording remarks in ACRs of subordinate judicial officers..In the judgment passed on September 15, the High Court said that Justice Singh could have at least ordered an inquiry and asked for Sharma’s response, but instead a “short-cut method” was adopted by declaring him unfit to be retained in service.“It is difficult to comprehend that an Officer who had no adverse remarks in his entire career spanning 30 years, behaved and conducted himself in such a manner, compelling the concerned Administrative Judge to categorise the petitioner from 'Very Good' in 2009-10, down to 'C' (doubtful integrity),” the Court said.It found that earlier adverse remarks recorded in some of the ACRs were taken into account despite the same having become inconsequential on account of Sharma having subsequently been promoted as district judge.“The irrelevant material of the adverse remarks in the last five months of the ACR for the appraisal year 2010-2011, recorded by the then Administrative Judge, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh were further taken into account, by ignoring the fact that an Officer who had earned ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ remarks throughout his entire service career of 30 years, cannot overnight become bad to the extent of rendering his ‘Integrity Doubtful’,” the High Court ruled..The Court further opined that the competent authority, which recommended Sharma’s compulsory retirement, may have failed to notice the element of “malafide in law” by Justice Singh.“The Competent Authority in all probability did not notice the element of malafide in law, which became palpable in the present case, especially on the part of the Administrative Judge, who recorded adverse remarks in the last five months of the ACR of petitioner, for the appraisal year 2010-2011.”Consequently, the Court set aside the compulsory retirement of Sharma and ordered that he be given all consequential benefits. “The petitioner is further entitled to all consequential benefits including notional seniority, pay fixation. Fixation of pension, payment of arrears of pension, except payment of arrears of salary for the period, he remained out of service.".Justice Singh served at the Punjab and Haryana High Court between 2009 and 2012, on transfer from the Uttarakhand High Court, where he was appointed as a judge in October 2009. In 2012, he was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court. He was later repatriated to the Uttarakhand High Court. A year before his retirement, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court in April 2020..Senior Advocate SK Garg Narwana with Advocate Arav Gupta represented Dr Shiva Sharma.Senior Advocate Sumeet Mahajan with Advocates Shruti Singla and Balpreet K Sidhu represented the High Court.Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan appeared for the State of Haryana..[Read Judgment]