1995 (3) TMI 471 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of promotion to the rank of Lt. General.
2. Adverse remarks made by the Chief of the Army Staff.
3. Compliance with prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice.
4. Impact of adverse remarks on the appellant's promotion.
5. Timing of the statutory complaint's disposal.
6. Validity of the Selection Board's decision.
7. Precedents and their applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Promotion to the Rank of Lt. General:
The appellant, Major General IPS Dewan, contended that he was denied promotion to the rank of Lt. General despite being the senior-most candidate with the best service record. The denial was attributed to adverse remarks made by the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), General S.F. Rodrigues, on May 11, 1993. The appellant sought the expunction of these remarks and his promotion to Lt. General.

2. Adverse Remarks Made by the Chief of the Army Staff:
The adverse remarks stated that the appellant mishandled CBI cases against H.S. Nanda, failed to apply professional acumen, and acted in a manner unbecoming of his rank. These remarks were based on a Court of Enquiry's report, which found serious lapses on the part of the appellant and other officers in processing the cases.

3. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the adverse remarks amounted to "severe displeasure," requiring a show-cause notice as per the Memorandum dated January 5, 1989. The Court found that the remarks were adverse remarks, not an expression of "severe displeasure," and thus did not require the procedure prescribed for "severe displeasure." The Court noted that adverse remarks can be made without a formal enquiry or prior opportunity to represent unless the rules provide otherwise.

4. Impact of Adverse Remarks on the Appellant's Promotion:
The appellant claimed that the adverse remarks prejudiced his promotion. The Court observed that the Selection Board considered four officers, with the appellant being the senior-most. However, the Board selected the officer at Serial No. 4. The Court noted that the adverse remarks were part of the appellant's dossier, but it could not be conclusively determined if they influenced the Board's decision. The non-selection appeared to be based on an overall assessment rather than solely on the adverse remarks.

5. Timing of the Statutory Complaint's Disposal:
The appellant's statutory complaint against the adverse remarks was disposed of after the Selection Board considered his promotion. The Court found this objection to be technical, as the complaint was ultimately dismissed. No allegation of mala fides was made against the Central Government for dismissing the complaint.

6. Validity of the Selection Board's Decision:
The Court found no illegality in the Selection Board's procedure. The selection was based on merit, not seniority, and no allegations of mala fides or bias were made against the Board members. The Court emphasized that it could not act as an appellate authority over the Selection Board's decisions.

7. Precedents and Their Applicability:
The appellant cited Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, arguing that his statutory complaint should have been disposed of before considering his promotion. The Court noted that this decision dealt with compulsory retirement, not promotion, and was later dissented from in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer. The Court also referred to Mr. L. Butail v. Union of India, which supported the view that the decision of the Board was not vitiated by considering adverse remarks.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed without costs. The Court found that the adverse remarks were validly made based on the Court of Enquiry's report. The Selection Board's decision to overlook the appellant for promotion was based on an overall assessment, not solely on the adverse remarks. The statutory complaint's timing did not invalidate the Board's decision. The Court did not express an opinion on the validity of the Central Government's order rejecting the statutory complaint, leaving it open for the appellant to challenge it in accordance with the law.