1991 (4) TMI 439 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order rejecting the respondent's representation against adverse remarks.
2. Requirement of recording reasons for rejecting the representation.
3. Application of principles of natural justice to administrative orders.

Summary:

1. Validity of the order rejecting the respondent's representation against adverse remarks:
The appeal challenges the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision quashing the Ministry of Commerce's order dated 6.1.1986, which rejected the respondent's representation against adverse remarks. The Tribunal held that the absence of reasons in the rejection order rendered it arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

2. Requirement of recording reasons for rejecting the representation:
The Tribunal emphasized that it is a basic principle of natural justice that orders should contain reasons. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of reasons indicated that the competent authority did not apply its mind to the grounds raised in the representation. However, the Supreme Court noted that there are no statutory rules u/s Article 309 of the Constitution requiring reasons to be recorded for rejecting representations against adverse entries. The Court held that while it is desirable to record reasons to avoid suspicion, the absence of statutory or administrative requirements to record reasons does not render the order illegal.

3. Application of principles of natural justice to administrative orders:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders affecting civil consequences. However, it clarified that these principles do not mandate recording reasons for every administrative decision. The Court stated that the superior authority, while considering representations against adverse remarks, is not required by law to act judicially or record reasons. The Court emphasized that the competent authority must act in a fair and just manner, considering the questions raised by the government servant and the comments of the reporting and counter-signing officers. The absence of reasons in the rejection order does not render it illegal if the decision was made fairly and justly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order dated 27.7.1987. The Court held that the President was under no legal obligation to record reasons for rejecting the respondent's representation against adverse remarks. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in quashing the President's order and the Ministry of Commerce's order dated 6.1.1986. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.