would submit that the order impugned in the present case is
founded on misconduct. His submission is that in a bold and
highlighted portion of the ACR of the Petitioner, it is stated that
there are complaints about her integrity as well. There is,
according to Mr.Anturkar, a complaint that the Petitioner has
not pronounced the judgments after dictating them but has
pronounced them without dictation. It is in these circumstances
that he would submit that the order is not of discharge
simplicitor but on account of serious misconduct and which can
be established and proved only after a regular inquiry. That
mandates an opportunity being given to the party like Petitioner
and before being terminated/discharged from service. It is in
these circumstances that he would submit that the impugned
order is required to be quashed and set aside. We are unable to
agree with Mr.Anturkar. The observations of the Principal Judge
of Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court would have to be read
as a whole. They refer to the criminal judgments and civil
judgments. If there are no material defects in the civil
judgments and that is why the argument is that the foundation
of the order is a misconduct or complaint about integrity or of
pronouncing the judgments without dictating the same, then, it
is not a discharge simplicitor. However, this overlooks the fact
that the judgment writing too suffers from four basic legal
infirmities and as highlighted. It is in these circumstances that
merely because something is written in bold does not mean that
High Court has been influenced by that portion alone or it has
based its decision on the same without taking into consideration
the entire record and assessing it in a overall manner.
Mr.Anturkar's argument overlooks the fact that the Principal
Judge of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court is the
Reporting Authority. His/Her remarks are placed before a
learned Judge of this Court and who is nominated as a
Guardian Judge for that particular District Court by the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of this Court. When these remarks were placed
before the Hon'ble Guardian Judge, he endorsed that the
performance of the Petitioner is not satisfactory and hence she
may be discharged from service. Thereafter, a Committee
comprising of four learned Judges two of whom are lady Judges
and earlier presiding over as Judges of the Bombay City Civil
and Sessions Court, considered the entire record. It is not that
the remarks of the registry or the highlighted portion only has
influenced their conclusion. The Committee in its ultimate
order expressed its agreement with the remarks of the learned
Guardian Judge.
19. Thereafter these remarks of the Probation
Committee were placed before the Administrative Judges'
Committee and it is the Administrative Judges' Committee, of
which neither the Guardian Judge nor other two lady Judges
were a part, expressed its independent agreement and held that
the Probation Committee has rightly arrived at a conclusion that
the Petitioner ought to be discharged from service. Nothing
from this record would indicate that the order passed and
impugned in the present petition is founded on the alleged
misconduct of the Petitioner or is influenced by any complaint
about lack of integrity. An overall assessment of the Petitioner's
performance has been made. For that purpose, the service
record has been perused in its entirety including all the
judgments delivered and their quality. Once the Petitioner's
performance is assessed for determining whether she is suitable
for being confirmed or continued in Maharashtra Judicial
Services, then, it is erroneous to term the impugned order as
casting any stigma or aspersion on the character of the
Petitioner. It is nothing but a discharge simplicitor of a
probationer and during the probationary period.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2814 OF 2015
Smt.Smita Rajendra Kadu,
versus
The State of Maharashtra.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND
B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 23 December 2015
Citation; 2016 (2) MHLJ 867
