1997 (3) TMI 603 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of representation by higher authorities based on adverse remarks in confidential report.
2. Validity of adverse remarks made by Superintendent of Police.
3. Legal position regarding consideration of adverse remarks impacting the career of a government servant.
4. Justification for rejection of second representation by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, received adverse entries in his confidential report for a specific period, leading to rejection of his representations by higher authorities. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 challenging this decision.

2. The adverse remarks made by the Superintendent of Police included comments on the petitioner's honesty, reliability, defects, and general remarks about potential improvement. The petitioner's counsel argued that these remarks were vague and lacked specifics, making the rejection of the second representation unjust and arbitrary.

3. The Supreme Court emphasized the purpose of communicating adverse remarks to a government servant, which is to provide an opportunity for self-improvement, discipline, and correction of conduct. The confidential report should objectively assess the officer's work, integrity, and efficiency to facilitate improvement in public service.

4. The Court acknowledged the prevalence of corruption in public service and the importance of officers dedicating themselves honestly and diligently to their duties. It noted that specific instances of corruption may not always be evident but can still impact an officer's reputation. In this case, the remarks were based on the petitioner's reputation, indicating a need for him to demonstrate honesty and integrity in the future.

5. The Court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's representations was not arbitrary or illegal, as the authorities had considered the matter and found no grounds for intervention. The petitioner's repeated representations were deemed unlikely to change the decision, and the rejection was upheld as justified.

6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the decision of the lower courts and finding no reason to interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's representations based on the adverse remarks in the confidential report.