The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a judicial officer seeking removal of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2009.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that the Court cannot substitute its view for that of the administrative committee which assessed the officer’s integrity and performance. The Bench also observed that discreet enquiries may legitimately form part of the process for evaluating a judicial officer’s integrity.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh HC: Contract Professor Can’t Be Replaced by Another Contractual Appointee
The petition was filed by N. Vijaya Babu, a Principal Junior Civil Judge, challenging adverse entries describing his work as “average,” stating that his integrity was “doubtful,” and characterizing his judicial approach as erratic.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Civil Judge in 2008 and served at various locations in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.
In November 2011, he received his Annual Confidential Report for 2009, which evaluated his performance during his posting as Junior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar in Nalgonda district. The report contained adverse remarks regarding his integrity and work performance.
Following the communication of the ACR, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the materials relied upon while preparing the report. The Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court provided relevant documents, including work review statements and confidential reports submitted by the Principal District Judge.
Read Also:- Andhra HC Cancels Re-Appointment of Retired Animal Husbandry Director, Issues Quo Warranto Against Officer
These materials also referred to two disciplinary enquiries pending against the officer at that time.
Subsequently, both enquiries were dropped in June and August 2012. After his exoneration, the petitioner requested a review and removal of the adverse remarks in the ACR. However, the review request was rejected by the High Court administration in February 2013.
Arguments Presented in Court
The petitioner argued that the adverse entries in the confidential report were primarily based on the pending disciplinary proceedings.
Since the enquiries were later dropped and he was exonerated, the petitioner contended that the remarks regarding his integrity could no longer be sustained.
His counsel also argued that discreet enquiries should not form the basis for recording adverse remarks in a judicial officer’s confidential report, especially when there is no concrete evidence establishing misconduct.
Read Also:- Andhra HC Cancels Re-Appointment of Retired Animal Husbandry Director, Issues Quo Warranto Against Officer
Reliance was placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts dealing with evaluation of judicial officers and integrity-related remarks in service records.
Court’s Key Observations
The High Court noted that the judgments cited by the petitioner did not establish that discreet enquiries cannot be used while recording remarks in an ACR.
The Bench observed that integrity-related assessments often cannot rely on direct evidence. In such situations, discreet enquiries and administrative evaluation may play a role in forming an opinion.
The Court held that it would not be appropriate for a writ court to replace the opinion of the administrative committee with its own assessment.
However, the Bench also issued an important caution regarding the recording of adverse remarks against judicial officers.
The Court noted that judicial officers may sometimes face allegations from disgruntled litigants, lawyers, or staff members. Therefore, while recording remarks concerning integrity, authorities must exercise caution and verify allegations from multiple sources rather than relying on a single input.
Such safeguards are necessary because remarks concerning integrity can have serious consequences on a judicial officer’s career and reputation.
Final Decision of the Court
After considering the submissions and the materials placed on record, the High Court declined to interfere with the adverse entries made in the petitioner’s confidential report.
The Bench held that there was no legal ground to set aside the administrative decision of the High Court authorities.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.
Case Details
Case Title: N. Vijaya Babu v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 30701 of 2013
