1996 (1) TMI 437 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include downgrading of entries in annual confidential reports, obligation to communicate adverse entries to employees, and the system of recording annual confidential reports in U.P. Jal Nigam.

Downgrading of Entries in Annual Confidential Reports:
The first respondent was downgraded in their confidential report, leading to a correction by the Service Tribunal. The High Court ruled that downgrading entries can be adverse and must be communicated to the employee to allow for representation. The court emphasized that confidential reports are assets for employees and any adverse changes can impact their career progression.

Obligation to Communicate Adverse Entries:
The Nigam's rules require adverse entries to be communicated to the employee, but not necessarily downgrading of entries. The court clarified that while extreme downgrades may be considered adverse and require communication, minor changes in grading may not always be adverse. It was highlighted that reasons for downgrading should be recorded and communicated to maintain the purpose of annual confidential reports.

System of Recording Annual Confidential Reports in U.P. Jal Nigam:
The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness in the system of recording annual confidential reports in U.P. Jal Nigam. It was noted that without proper communication of changes in grading, the purpose of such reports would be defeated. The court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the case of the first respondent and the necessity for proper communication in such matters.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the High Court's decision regarding the downgrading of entries in annual confidential reports and the obligation to communicate adverse changes to employees in U.P. Jal Nigam.