Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a special leave petition filed by U.P. Jal Nigam and others against a judgment of the High Court concerning the system of recording annual confidential reports in the Nigam, specifically the communication of downgraded entries. The first respondent, an employee, had been downgraded in his confidential report at a certain point of time. The Service Tribunal had given a correction. Before the High Court, the Nigam contended that downgrading entries in confidential reports cannot be termed adverse entries, and therefore there was no obligation to communicate them to the employee or invite a representation. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that confidential reports are assets of the employee because they weigh to his advantage at promotional and extensional stages of service. The High Court gave an illustration that if an employee legitimately earned an 'outstanding' report in a particular year which, in a succeeding year and without his knowledge, is reduced to 'satisfactory', it would certainly be adverse and affect him at one or another stage of his career. The Supreme Court explained the High Court's observations. It noted that the Nigam has rules requiring communication of adverse entries but not downgrading of an entry. The Court held that the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good', that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are positive gradings. All that is required in such a situation is for the authority recording confidentials to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If such a variation were not permissible, the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated, as employees might slacken after achieving an optimum level. The Court also emphasized that the sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be communicated as such. It further observed that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can per se be adverse, and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case, the Court inspected the service record of the first respondent and found that no reason for the change was mentioned and the downgrading was reflected by comparison. This could not sustain. Having explained the correct system for the Jal Nigam and the case of the first respondent, the Supreme Court accepted the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court and dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Confidential Reports - Communication of Adverse Entries - U.P. Jal Nigam Service Rules (unspecified) - The issue was whether downgrading of a confidential report entry, such as from 'very good' to 'good', constituted an adverse entry requiring communication to the employee. The Court clarified that a mere step-down between positive gradings is not ordinarily an adverse entry because both are positive gradings, but the authority recording confidentials must record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted is not permissible, the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated. Held that the ultimate result of the High Court was correct. B) Service Law - Confidential Reports - Adverseness in Positive Entries - U.P. Jal Nigam Service Rules (unspecified) - The court observed that even a positive confidential entry can in a given case be adverse, and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. The sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be communicated as such. In the instant case, no reason for the change was mentioned and the downgrading was reflected by comparison. Held that this cannot sustain and the special leave petition was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether downgrading entries in annual confidential reports can be termed adverse entries so as to obligate the U.P. Jal Nigam to communicate the same to the employee and attract a representation.
Final Decision
The special leave petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court accepted the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court, while clarifying the system: downgrading from 'very good' to 'good' is not ordinarily an adverse entry, but reasons for downgrading must be recorded on the personal file and the employee informed by way of advice. If adverseness is reflected, it must be communicated. In the first respondent's case, no reason was recorded and the downgrading by comparison could not sustain.
Law Points
- Adverse entries in confidential reports must be communicated to employee
- downgrading of positive grading from 'very good' to 'good' is not ordinarily adverse but reasons must be recorded and employee informed by advice
- sting of adverseness in any variation must be communicated as adverse
- positive entry can be adverse in given case
- adverse entry need not always be qualitatively damaging.
