A woman judicial officer from Ghaziabad has won a major victory in the Supreme Court, which held that complaints about her rudeness and behaviour cannot be used to brand her integrity as doubtful.
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana dismissed the Allahabad High Court administration's plea, noting that mere insubordination could not render the integrity of the officer suspect.
The officer served as Additional Civil Judge in Ghaziabad during 2019-2020. Her District Judge gave adverse remarks on her integrity in her ACR, terming it doubtful on account of oral complaints by advocates regarding her behaviour and rudeness.
She had good service records from 2013-19 and from 2020-21 onwards.
Justice Bagchi remarked: "There may be rudeness in her, there may be a tendency to shirk work, but will that make the officer of doubtful integrity? There is an understanding in common parlance as to what integrity is... the word integrity relates to dishonesty. Insubordination relates to judicial temperament."
The High Court said many complaints had been made by advocates. The judge at the apex court, however, noted that none were about dishonesty. There were complaints and cross-complaints over exchanges with Bar members, for which the officer had given her explanation.
Justice Bagchi further added that the officer perhaps lacked proper temperament or the ability to manage court affairs.
CJI Kant said: "A person can't become dishonest for one year and honest for all other years."
When told that her ACR had improved after 2019-20, Justice Bagchi said: "Then be magnanimous to her."
He disagreed that integrity related to sincerity and probity in judicial work. "When it's a case of integrity, it's a question of extraneous considerations," he said.
On her complaint against her superior, Justice Bagchi added: "It's insubordination. Insubordination is not an integrity issue. It's a temperament issue."
He said ACRs should use proper expressions, such as saying that behaviour with the Bar was not good.
The High Court wanted liberty for further action. The bench declined. "We will not give you any compliment like that. As you rightly said, your warning has had its impact in improvement. I think a model employer should leave it at that," said Justice Bagchi.
The High Court, on the judicial side, had expunged the remarks. It perused the Oxford Dictionary definition of integrity as the character of uncorrupted virtue and found the administration's counsel unable to point to anything to support the allegation of poor integrity. It noted that the portfolio judge's remark was mainly based on feedback from the District Judge at the time of his visit, with no indication that he had interacted with the petitioner.
It also held that remarks about orders in injunction suits related to merits, which were amenable to correction in appeal/revision, and had nothing to do with integrity.
The administration had argued that she had declined in writing to perform duties assigned by the CJM and had complained against him, tantamount to insubordination. The Supreme Court held that insubordination is not an integrity issue.
The ruling restores the officer's reputation and sets a precedent for ACRs.
