1997 (2) TMI 541 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adverse remarks in confidential reports.
2. Promotion denial due to adverse remarks.
3. Tribunal and High Court's findings of malice and arbitrariness.
4. Principles of writing confidential reports.
5. Natural justice and opportunity to explain adverse remarks.
6. Impact of pending vigilance enquiry on adverse remarks.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adverse Remarks in Confidential Reports:
The adverse remarks for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 were recorded in the confidential reports of the respondent. These remarks led to the respondent not being promoted. The Service Tribunal quashed these adverse remarks, citing malice and arbitrariness by the Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision.

2. Promotion Denial Due to Adverse Remarks:
The adverse remarks in the confidential reports directly impacted the respondent's promotion. The Tribunal's decision to quash these remarks was based on the finding that they were arbitrary and malicious. This decision was upheld by the High Court.

3. Tribunal and High Court's Findings of Malice and Arbitrariness:
The Tribunal found that the remarks made by the Secretary were due to malice and were arbitrary. The High Court affirmed this finding. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Secretary was not given an opportunity to explain the position, which violated the principles of natural justice. Additionally, a pending vigilance enquiry at the time justified the adverse remarks.

4. Principles of Writing Confidential Reports:
The judgment emphasized the need for confidential reports to be written objectively, fairly, and dispassionately. The reports should comment on the conduct, character, efficiency, or integrity of the officer in a constructive manner. The judgment referenced several cases, including S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa and State Bank of India vs. Kashinath Kher, to underline the importance of fair and objective assessment in confidential reports.

5. Natural Justice and Opportunity to Explain Adverse Remarks:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Secretary was not a party to the proceedings and had no opportunity to explain the adverse remarks, which violated the principles of natural justice. The judgment stressed that before making adverse remarks, the officer should be given an opportunity to correct any deficiencies.

6. Impact of Pending Vigilance Enquiry on Adverse Remarks:
The Supreme Court noted that at the time the adverse remarks were made, a vigilance enquiry was pending against the respondent. This justified the adverse remarks as the Secretary could not clear the respondent's conduct and integrity until the enquiry was resolved. Therefore, the findings of malice and arbitrariness were not warranted.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the findings of malice and arbitrariness by the Tribunal and High Court were set aside. The judgment emphasized the importance of objective and fair assessment in writing confidential reports and upheld the need for natural justice by allowing officers to explain adverse remarks. The pending vigilance enquiry justified the adverse remarks, negating the claims of malice and arbitrariness. No costs were awarded.