REJECTION OF MY REVIEW PETITION

Memo No.     R (Inspection-II) Dated : Calcutta, 6th December, 2010.

From,

Harjinder Singh,

Registrar (Inspection-II), Appellate Side,

High Court, Kolkata-700001.

 

To

The Registrar (Inspection-I),

Appellate Side, High Court, Kolkata-700001.

Dated, Kolkata the 17th day of September, 2010.       

Sub: A review petition against the decision of the  

        Administrative Committee in res-pect of

        Item No.(4) thereof.

Sir,

Matter

How disposed of

To consider the grading in the ACR of Sri Harjinder Singh, Registrar (Inspection-II), for years 2007 and 2008.

Discussed.

Sri Singh has been graded as "Average" in his ACRs for the years 2007 as well as 2008. After examining his ACRs fro the years 2007 and 2008, it is found that though thequality of judgments delivered by him during these two years was good, his rate of disposal of cases were "Poor" and "Inadequate" respectively. Therefore, the Representation of Sri Singh deserves no merit and the same is rejected.

 

In invoking reference to Item No.(4) of the resolution of the Administrative Committee meeting of this Hon’ble Court held on 19.11.2010, I would like to reproduce the text of the said resolution at the left-side margin of this page ( for ready reference) as though I find some metaphysical gain as the quality of Judgments delivered by me has been reassessed to be "Good" by Their Lordships in the light of submissions made by me against the comments passed in my ACR for the year 2007 & 2008. Now with renewed efforts with a view an eye to get real Justice from Their Lordships I further submit as follows :- 

There being no comments in respect of the explanation given by me regarding the inadequate disposal of cases during the relevant 2 years, I am confident that the explanation given by me for low disposal has escaped the notice of Their Lordships, otherwise the result of my representation would have been different and positive. Now in the light of some additional materials being supplied by me I am submitting this prayer for review of the decision dated 19.11.2010 on the following grounds :-

1. During the said 2 years the number of pending cases in my Court were insufficient as number of cases pending in my Court at the beginning of the relevant years as per data supplied by me in the ACR booklets is as follows :-

DATA AS PER ACR FOR THE YEAR

2007

DATA AS PER ACR FOR THE YEAR

2008

CLASS I SUITS

Pendency at the beginning of the year

DISPOSAL OF CONTESTED CASES

DISPOSAL OF UN CONTESTED CASES

TOTAL DISPOSAL OF CASES

PENDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR

Pendency at the beginning of the year

DISPOSAL OF CONTESTED CASES

DISPOSAL OF UN CONTESTED CASES

TOTAL DISPOSAL OF CASES

PENDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR

OTHER SUITS/OTHER SUITS

15

 

16

-

 

2

9

 

2

9

 

4

28

 

13

27

15

3

1

16

2

19

3

26

13

Misc. Cases Civil

5

2

2

4

5

5

2

6

8

5

Regular Execution Cases

7

-

1

1

10

10

-

7

7

22

Regular Appeals

44

17

4

21

37

37

15

5

20

32

Misc. Appeals (Civil)

6

5

-

5

3

3

12

2

14

3

Interlocutory matters

NIL

31

-

31

NIL

NIL

33

-

33

-

Sessions Cases

40

17

-

17

45

45

20

1

21

33

Crl. Appeal

1

4

-

4

1

1

1

-

1

5

Criminal Misc. Cases











Bail Applications

NIL

10

-

10

NIL

NIL

83

-

83

NIL

Criminal Revision

12

42

7

7

4

4

11

11

9

38

9

13

3

16

13

Other cases (MACC CASES)

122

62

34+3

99

143

145

73

16

89

90

TOTAL

310

164

63

227


335

316

62

378

274

 

(I) A perusal of my ACR booklet will show that in the year 2007 there were only 310 Civil and Criminal cases pending in the beginning of the year in my Court and yet I disposed of a total of 227 cases which in my opinion is a substantial disposal in spite of a very low pendency of cases. It may be recalled that even for creation of a new Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge a minimum of 500 cases are required, while in my Court, at the relevant time there were only 310 pending cases at the beginning of the year.

(II) Similarly, in the year 2008, at the beginning of the year only 335 Civil and Criminal cases were pending in my Court and I disposed of in all 378 cases out of which 316 cases were contested cases and 62 uncontested cases. In other words in the year 2008 during the 212 days that I was employed, I disposed of on an average 1.49 contested cases on each one of the working day and if one takes into account even disposal of uncontested cases, than the average disposal of cases conspicuously comes to 1.78 cases per day. Yet in spite of disposal of a reasonably good number of cases every day, despite the low pendency of cases, I earned average or less than average units because low units are awarded to the disposal of Civil cases whilevery high units are awarded for disposal of Sessions cases.

If a presiding officer disposes of 227/310 x 100 = 73% and more than 100% i.e. 378/335 x 100 =112.8% of the cases pending at the inception of the year, can such disposal, by any stretch of imagination be called poor or inadequate? If yes, then such a system of assessment deserves to be dumped lock stock and barrel in the Hind Maha Sagar. It takes time to dispose of cases generated or transferred during the pendency of the year under consideration.

In this light, I am reproducing my contention as given in my previous representation for reconsideration by Their Lordships as follows :-

"SECONDLY: REGARDING THE QUANTITY OF DISPOSAL:

In this regard, I would like to reproduce some data from my past 5 years records to show that Assessment based on Unit system often does not reflect the real Hard work put in by a Judicial during a month or year on account of several factors. My thesis is that, amongst the WBHJS Officers, all the WBHJS officers posted as ordinary Regular ADJs are the worst sufferers and the only exception to the Rule are the District Judges and ADJs posted in the Sub-division and having almost similar filing powers , particularly regarding bail matters, vested in them by virtue of West Bengal Amendment Act (Act 24 of 1988) iu/Sec.9(3) of the Cr,P.C. Regular ADJs without such filing powers are the worst sufferers on account of the following reasons:-

a.   No filing powers means no or negligible filing as well as disposal of bail petitions u/Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C., and also complete absence of Criminal Misc. Cases and therefore low Units per day.

b.   Another source of earning more units is disposal of Sessions Cases for which very high Units are reserved even though the Judgment may be one of "acquittal" generally completed in less than 4 pages and within half an hour. But ordinary Regular ADJs get very few Sessions cases for disposal, in view of the directions of Hon'ble High Court to the District Judges to transfer all Sessions/Criminal cases only to the Additional Sessions Judges, posted in Fast Track Courts while all Civil matters such as Title Appeals, Misc. Appeals, MACC cases, Matrimonial Suits etc. etc. only are transferred to the Regular ADJs with the result that Unit churning Sessions Cases go only to the Fast Track Courts while, tedious matters with less units per case such as NDPS cases, Electricity Cases, MACC Cases, Title Apples, Mat Suits etc. where the quantum of labour required to be put in for disposal is though very high, units earned on disposal of such cases is often meager and the officer suffers for no fault on his part. For example, a two page Judgment of acquittal in a Sessions case would earn the officer concerned at least 10 or more units while even a ten page disposal of MACC case u/Sec.166 of the MV Act would earn the concerned officer merely 3 units. This is blatantly unfair and needs to be revised. This often leads to unjust results. For example in the year 2004 I procured 3.70 average units by disposing of merely 158 cases, while in the year 2007 and 2008 I received only 2.82 and 3.62 units by disposing of higher number of cases i.e. 227 and 378 cases because in these two years, disposal of MACC cases (which fetch only 1 unit in a Case u/Sec.140 of MV Act and only 3 Units in a Case u/Sec.166 of MV Act) was high.

c.   A low pendency of cases in remote Subdivisions inevitably lead to low disposal of cases as because the Advocates in such situation become interested in obtaining adjournments as no body wants to become brief less. The table given below will prove my submission:-

YEAR

POSTING

PENDING CASES ON 1ST JAN.

DISPOSAL OF SESSIONS CASES

BAIL APPLICATIONS

PENDENCY AT THE END OF THE YEAR

UNITS EARNED

UNITS PER DAY

TOTAL DISPOSAL OF CASES

GRADATION

 

 

 

C

U

T

 

 

 

 

 

 

2003

ADJ F.T. ASANSOL

448

49

8

57

28

131

967.5

4.62

345

C

2004

ADJ F.T.ASANSOL AND D.H.

TWO POST-INGS

31

3

34

NIL

TWO POSTINGS

638

3.70

158

C

2005

ADJ FT & ADJREGULAR D.H.

364

69

10

79

107

307

1171,5

5.5

200+8 =208

C

2006

ADJ D.H.

80

28

6

34

604

699

1030.25

4.57

858

C

2007

ADJ -CUM-SPL JUDGE SURI

310

17

0

17

10

227

590.5

2.82

227

D

2008

-DO-

335

20

1

21

83

378

775.5

3.62

378


 

I strongly feel that the allocation of high units in respect of Sessions cases and very low units in respect of Civil cases isunreasonable and needs to be reviewed. For example, a Sessions Judge deciding a single sessions case even in case of an acquittal involving 15 accused persons where 8 witnesses were examined would get 33 points by writing a couple of pages of Judgement while a Judge deciding the fate of a complex case of 15 claimants in a Motor accident case where 10 witnesses are examined shall get merely 3 units as follows :-

 

Sessions Case

M.A.C. Case

1. For deciding the case

10

3

2. 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the 15 accused

15

Not applicable

3. For examination of 10 witnesses

8

NIL

 

33

3

 

Therefore, if there are no or few Sessions cases in any regular Court of Additional District Judge, his gradation is bound to suffer.

I may point out that in the State of Kerala the gradation of an officer is assessed on the basis of total number of cases (both Civil & Criminal) disposed of irrespective of the nature of cases, or units earned - which method - in my opinion is a better option than the one being followed at present by the Calcutta High Court.

Lastly, I want to point out that even in Calcutta High Court there are innumerable instances to show that in the past as well as in present to show that WBHJS officers have been graded "Good" in spite of their poor disposal as per the list given below which is merely illustrative and not exhastive:-

SL.

No

.

Name of the Officer

Year

Total units earned

Average unit per day

Gradation

1.

Bibhas Ranjan Dey,ADJ, FTC, Bichar Bhawan

2004

292.5

1.42

C

2.

-Do-

ADJ, 3rd Court (Special) Jalpaiguri

2005

355.56

1.6

C

3.

Bharati Bhattacharya ADJ, FTC, Bichar Bhawan

2004

101

0.54

C

 

4.

-Do-

ADJ, FTC, Alipurduar

2005

426.5

1.93

C

5.

Bibek Chaudhuri, ADJ, FTC- Kolkata

2004

217

1.24

C

6.

-Do-

2005

216

1.12

C

7.

Chandrakala Vora,

ADJ, FTC-I, Kolkata

2003

370

2.62

C

8.

-Do-

2004

254

1.13

C

9.

-Do-

2005

274

1.29

C

10.

Binod Kumar Srivastav ADJ, FTC, Kolkata

2003

302

3.63

C

11.

-Do-

2004

513.5

2.22

C

12.

Tapan Kumar Das-I,

ADJ, FTC-II, Suri

2007

637

3.02

C

13.

-Do-

2008

452.5

2.30

C

14.

Sandipan Bandyopadhyay,ADJ,

FTC-I, Serampore

2007

648.56

3.27

C

15.

Sri K.P. Shah,

ADJ, FTC-II, Ranaghat

2008

354.66

2.38

C

16.

Qazi Safiur Rahaman,

ADJ, FTC-III, Midnapore

2008

605.75

2.78

C

17.

Plak Kumar Tewari,

ADJ, FTC, Tehatta

2008

517.5

2.87

C

 

18.

D.N. Roy Barman,

ADJ, FTC, Arambagh

2008

434

2.08

C

19.

Shyamal Sengupta,

ADJ, Paschim Medinipore

2008

606.4

2.68

C

Therefore, after having graded the aforesaid and many other officers of the rank of WBHJS as “Good” as per the list given above and inspite of their disposal being much more poorer than that of mine, even though the pendency of cases in my Court in the relevant years was much below the minimum limit of 500 cases prescribed for the purpose of creation of a new Court of Additional District and Sessions Court , can there now be any justificationto deny me at least a similar ranking as given to them, if not a higher gradation? If the answer be in the negative, then such a decision shall militate against my fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

I may further point out that at present there is no norms in existence that mandates that in case of "Inadequate" or "Poor" disposal, the gradation shall always be ‘D’ or "Average". None can be punished on the basis of any sudden introduction of any ex-post-facto change in the norms for assessment of one's assessment.

Under such circumstances, I request you to kindly place my review petition before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice so that steps for undoing the wrong done to me may be taken by His Lordship.

Yours faithfully,

 

                                                           (HARJINDER SINGH)

                                                                                                                                 Sd'-

                                                         Registrar (Inspection-II)


Note:- This review petition too was rejected by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court without assigning any reason therefor.

 

Comments