Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
N.Vijaya Babu vs Pandey Gajendra Prasad on 10 March, 2026
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
APHC010768262013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
_________,THE ________ DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 30701/2013
Between:
1. N.VIJAYA BABU,, S/O N.V.SUBBA RAO, OCC: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, PRODDATUR, YSR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A P, Rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance),
Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the adverse entry made against
petitioner in the Confidential Report of the year, 2009 which was
communicated through proceedings in ROC.No.678012011- B.SPL, dated 31-
10-2011 and the consequential rejection of petitioner application for review of
the adverse entry in petitioner Confidential Report of the year, 2009 the
proceedings in Roc.No.1468/2013-B SP dated 19-02-2013 issued by the
respo arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to
petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside
the same and pass
2
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 38117 OF 2013
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the adverse entry made against petitioner in the Confidential Report
of the year, 2009 which was communicated through proceedings
ROC.No.6780/2011 -B.SPL, dated 31-10-2011 and the consequential
rejection of petitioner application for review of the adverse entry in petitioner
Confidential Report of the year, 2009 through the proceedings in
ROC.No.1468/2013-B.SPL, dated 19-022013 issued by the respondent,
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. VENKATESWARLU POSANI
Date of Reserved : 02.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement :
Date of Upload :
3
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioner and Sri Venkateswaralu Posani, learned Standing Counsel,
appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein had been appointed as a Junior Civil Judge,
in year 2008, and had worked at various locations within the erstwhile State of
Andhra Pradesh as well as the present State of Andhra Pradesh. The
petitioner had received his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2009 in the
month of November, 2011 from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In this
Annual Confidential Report, the work of the petitioner, as Junior Civil Judge,
Huzurnagar, Nalgonda was described to be average and that the petitioner’s
integrity was doubtful and he was erratic in judicial approach. After receiving
this report, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 21.11.2011, to the
Registrar Vigilance, of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to furnish
him with the material on which the Annual Confidential Report had been
prepared. In reply to this representation, the Registrar Vigilance, by his
proceedings, dated 23.01.2012, furnished the material placed before the
Committee of the Hon’ble Judges for preparation of the Annual Confidential
Report for the year 2009. The material furnished to the petitioner contained
the work review statements for the year 2009 and the Confidential Reports
submitted by the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda along with two enquiries,
4
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013which were pending against the petitioner, as on that date. These enquiries
came to be dropped by proceedings dated 03.08.2012 and 20.06.2012. After
these proceedings had been dropped, the petitioner made a representation,
dated 21.09.2012, for a review of the observations, made against him, in the
Annual Confidential Report of 2009. This request was rejected, by
proceedings dated 19.02.2013.
3. The petitioner, after receiving this order of rejection, had again
made a representation, dated 15.03.2013, seeking the reasons why the
application for review was rejected. The Registrar, Vigilance by his
communication, dated 19.08.2013 sent the following to the petitioner.
“the reasons for rejection of expunction of adverse remarks
noted in the Annual Confidential Reports for the year, 2009
recorded by one of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court as
requested by you. “When I wrote the CR of the officer, two
Dis.cases were pending, of which one related to the conduct of
the officer touching his integrity. It is a different matter that the
officer was exonerated in the Dis. Proceedings. My discreet
enquiries with the then District Judge also made me form my
opinion as expressed in the CR. As is the normal case, more
often, there cannot be direct evidence or definite material to
prove or substantiate the opinions expressed in the CRs on the
integrity of the officers.”
4. The petitioner has now approached this Court for declaring that
the adverse entry made in the Confidential Report of the petitioner, for the
5
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
year 2009 was arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to set
aside the same.
5. The case of the petitioner is that the Confidential Report of 2009,
came to be prepared on the basis of the pending enquiries against the
petitioner. Once these enquiries had been contested, on merits, and had been
dropped by the Hon’ble High Court, the said entries cannot continue and the
reasons for rejecting the review application of the petitioner are not tenable.
The petitioner contends that once the enquiries had resulted in the
exoneration of the petitioner, there could not be any further doubts on his
integrity and that the Hon’ble Judge of the High Court could not have
depended on a discreet enquiry to observe that the integrity of the petitioner
was doubtful.
6. Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, contends that a discreet enquiry cannot form the basis on which an
adverse remark is recorded against any judicial officer while preparing his
Annual Confidential Reports. The learned counsel relies upon the following
judgments:
1) Registrar General, High Court of Patna vs Pandey Gajendra Prasad
and Ors.1
1
(2012) 6 SCC 357
6
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
2) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vs. Sarnam Singh and
Another.2
3) High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Ishwar Chand and Another.3
4) Barkha Gupta vs. High Court of Delhi.4
7. The learned counsel, could not draw the attention of this Court, to
any observation, in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was
to the effect that discreet enquiries cannot be the basis for any entry in the
Annual Confidential Report.
8. In the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the issue that
had come up before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the discreet
enquires conducted for a subsequent period can be the basis for making
adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a Judicial Officer, for an
earlier period of time and without consulting the inspecting Judge, who had
formed an opinion for the earlier years. On the question of whether the
discreet enquiry could the basis for such entries in the Annual Confidential
Report, the Hon’ble High Court had held as follows:
60. How should “discreet inquiries” be made? There are two aspects
to this question. Firstly, the period of time for which discreet inquiries
should be made and, secondly, the manner of making discreet
inquiries.
2
(2000) 2 SCCC 339
3
(1999) 4 SCC 579
4
2006 SCC Online Del 1595: (2007) 136 DLT 119(DB)
7
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
61. We are of the opinion that discreet inquiries should be made over
a suitable period of time. An inquiry into matters pertaining to the
integrity of a judicial officer, which may have the effect of permanently
damaging her career and reputation, must not be a one-off affair.
What we find in the present case is that two separate Committees
made discreet enquiries about the integrity of the Petitioner. On the
first occasion, the Administrative Committee took a decision on 12th
December, 2000 to refer the case of the Petitioner to a Special
Committee. It is not clear when actually the reference was made but
the Special Committee met on 8th February, 2001 and noted that
discreet enquiries have confirmed that there is substance in the
allegations that the Petitioner does not enjoy a good reputation about
integrity. It appears that the discreet enquiries were made over a
period of a little less than two months. On the second occasion,
discreet enquiries were made pursuant to the decision of the Full
Court taken on 1st August, 2002 and the minutes of the Committee
were recorded on 24th October, 2002 to the effect that the discreet
enquiries about the integrity of the Petitioner show that she does not
enjoy a good reputation. On this occasion, discreet enquiries were
made over a period of a little less than three months.
62. How long should the discreet inquiries last are 60 days or 90 days
not enough? It is not possible to give any definitive answer.
Theoretically, discreet enquiries can even be made over a period of
one day but is that all right? Maybe yes, in a given case. But so far as
this case is concerned, we have not been told either the time period
or the frequency of the discreet enquiries. It is quite possible that the
discreet enquiries were limited to a few telephone calls. We have
been left groping in the dark and are a little unhappy at the lack of
transparency in the procedure adopted by both the Committees. It
would have, in our opinion, been a far more healthier procedure to
adopt if some sort of a record was maintained showing the different
(even approximate) dates when the discreet enquiries were made
and from the categories of persons such as members of the Bar,
8
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
colleagues of the judicial officer, other learned Judges or the
administrative staff of the courts. Of course, further and fuller details
are not required to be disclosed because the enquiry is an in-house
and confidential matter but the record must indicate clearly and
positively that the discreet enquiries were not a one-off affair or
based on a casual talk or a couple of phone calls made during the
course of one day. We say this because the repercussions can be
devastating for a judicial officer. There may also be some exceptional
case, the converse of one that David Pannick has mentioned in his
book Judges. The learned author says, the qualities desired of a
judge can be simply stated: ‘that if he be a good one and that he be
thought to be so. Such credentials are not easily acquired.
The converse of this being a judge of doubtful integrity, and he being
thought to be so. If the general reputation of a judge is that his
integrity is doubtful, then perhaps there is no need to make discreet
inquiries in that regard. But that is not the situation that we are
concerned with – it is not the case of the High Court that the general
reputation of the Petitioner was one of a person of doubtful integrity.
9. In the present case, application for review, was rejected, on the
basis of certain discreet enquiries conducted by one of the Hon’ble Judges,
who was a part of the Committee, which rejected the application for review.
This situation cannot be equated to the situation before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, in the above Judgment. As observed in the impugned
communication, dated 30.10.2011, it would be extremely difficult for obtaining
any direct evidence or definite material to demonstrate that the integrity of an
officer is doubtful. In such circumstances, this Court cannot substitute its view
9
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
for the view of the review committee as to whether the integrity of the
petitioner was doubtful or otherwise.
10. While this Court, for the aforesaid reasons, is not interfering
with the view expressed in the impugned proceedings, it would be necessary
to place a caution regarding the manner in which adverse remarks, especially
relating to the integrity of Judges, are to be made in the Confidential Reports
of Judicial Officers. It is an acknowledged fact that disgruntled employees,
colleagues or litigants are prone to make allegations against Judicial Officers,
especially on the integrity of the Judicial Officers. The Hon’ble Judges of this
Court, have always balanced the need to investigate such complaints with the
need to protect honest officers who are being targeted for having passed
orders or Judgments which are not to the liking of the learned counsel
appearing for parties or for the litigants themselves. It would only be
appropriate that adequate precautions are taken before any adverse remarks
are placed in the Confidential Reports of the Judicial Officers. One such
protection could be to seek inputs from diverse sources and not to record an
adverse entry, especially regarding the integrity of a judicial officer, based on
a single input, even if the said input is from the Principal District Judge of the
said District. It is the view of this Court, that unless such allegations are cross
checked, it would not be safe to pass any adverse remark against the judicial
officer.
10
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
11. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
____________________
T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
RJS
11
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 30701 of 2013
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
.03.2026
RJS
12
RRR,J& TCDS,J
W.P.No.30701 of 2013