Case Note & Summary
This was a service law appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of India from an order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The appellant, Sri M.A. Rajasekhar, was working as a Tehsildar. He challenged an adverse remark recorded in his confidential report for the year 1988-89. The respondent was the State of Karnataka and another. The adverse remark read, 'Competent, good at getting work done, but does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma.' The core dispute concerned whether such an adverse remark could stand when all prescribed aspects of work and integrity were reported as satisfactory. For the assessment year 1988-89, the reporting officer recorded the above remark in the appellant's confidential report. The prescribed form for confidential remarks required assessment on eleven aspects: knowledge of work, power of expression, power of acquiring general information, attention to detail, industry, judgment, speed of disposal, willingness to accept responsibility and take decision, relationship with subordinates and colleagues, public relations, and integrity. In the present case, the report on all these aspects was satisfactory and there was no adverse report about integrity. The remark in question was underlined, and the last sentence indicated the officer intended it to be advisory, stating that the officer should evince more interest. The appellant filed an original application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal, in its order dated 1 February 1992 in Application No.1961/90, observed that when all ten aspects of work required to be assessed were satisfactory, the alleged adverse remark got considerably diluted. It opined that ends of justice would be served if the remarks were treated as advisory with a direction that they should not be made use of against the applicant for any purpose. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The main issue was whether an adverse remark in a confidential report can be sustained when all prescribed parameters of work were satisfactory and integrity was not doubted, especially when no specific instances were cited and no opportunity to correct was given. A secondary issue was whether the Tribunal correctly treated the remark as advisory rather than expunging it. The judgment records that the Supreme Court heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant contended, in effect, that the adverse remark was inconsistent with law because it was not based on any specific instance of unsatisfactory performance and he was not given an opportunity to correct himself. The respondent did not advance any detailed contentions in the short order; the Court proceeded based on the record and the Tribunal's findings. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence and performance of an officer so as to grade him into categories such as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory, and average. The competent authority and the reviewing authority must act fairly and objectively in assessing character, integrity, and performance. The Court noted that all eleven aspects of work were reported as satisfactory and integrity was not doubted. In such circumstances, a remark that the officer 'does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma' must be pointed out with reference to specific instances where he did not perform that duty satisfactorily. He should be given an opportunity to correct himself in cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. The Court observed that admittedly no such opportunity was given. It stated that even when an officer acted in dilemma and lacked objectivity, he must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he acted. Since this exercise had not been done, the adverse remark was not consistent with law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the adverse remark be expunged. No order as to costs was made. The Court effectively set aside the Tribunal's treatment of the remark as merely advisory and instead ordered its complete removal from the confidential report.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Confidential Reports and Adverse Remarks - Object and Fair Assessment - General service jurisprudence, no specific statute - The object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence and performance of an officer so as to grade him into categories such as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and average; competent and reviewing authorities must act fairly and objectively in assessing character, integrity and performance. In the present case, all eleven prescribed aspects of work were reported satisfactory and integrity was not doubted; therefore the adverse remark was inconsistent with law. Held that the appeal is allowed and the adverse remark stands expunged. B) Service Law - Adverse Remarks - Requirement of Specific Instances and Opportunity - General service jurisprudence, no specific statute - A remark that an officer 'does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma' must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself; he should be given an opportunity in cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given; hence the adverse remark was not consistent with law. Held that the adverse remark is expunged and no costs are awarded.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an adverse remark in a confidential report can be sustained when all prescribed criteria of work are satisfactory and integrity is not doubted, without specific instances and opportunity to correct; whether the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal erred in treating the adverse remark as advisory instead of expunging it
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the adverse remark was not consistent with law and directed that it be expunged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Object of adverse remarks is to assess competence and performance for grading
- competent and reviewing authorities must act fairly and objectively
- adverse remark must cite specific instances and give opportunity to correct
- vague remark inconsistent with law when all prescribed work aspects satisfactory and integrity not doubted
