The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a Tribunal order that expunged adverse remarks in an officer's confidential report. The Court held that State delays in communicating entries require relief, and the Tribunal was correct.
The Writ Petition and Writ Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 21.03.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Writ Petition No.10340 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.9143 of 2016
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Pol.IA) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
.... Petitioner
- Vs -
1. R.Tamil Chandran
2. The Union of India
rep. by The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Grih Mantralaya, North Block,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
New Delhi.
4. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
5. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench.
.... Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Tribunal, the fifth respondent herein pertaining to the impugned order, dated 02.07.2014 made in O.A.No.514 of 2011 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthikeyan, G.A.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 02.07.2014 in O.A.No.514 of 2011 directing the respondent therein to expunge the remarks recorded in the confidential report of the first respondent, the State of Tamil Nadu has filed the present Writ Petition.
The first respondent was directly recruited and appointed as DSP through TNPSC by the Government of Tamil Nadu during 1989. Thereafter, he was promoted and posted in various posts. In the meantime, while the first respondent was working as DSP Rasipuram, the fourth respondent herein has communicated the first respondent through memo dated 03.05.2000 the adverse entries for the period from 24.05.1995 to 31.3.1996. The adverse entries read "satisfactory with shortcomings" and he needs to improve himself. For the subsequent years, entries were made as 'Good' 'Very Good' 'Outstanding'. As against the said adverse entries, the first respondent herein preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent, which was rejected on 09.10.2000 and the review filed before the petitioner herein was also rejected on 23.11.2000. In view of the said adverse remarks, the name of the first respondent herein was not included in the select list of IPS for the year 2001 and 2002. However, on 29.12.2003, he was appointed as IPS by the second respondent herein and was allotted to Government of Tamil Nadu.
"12. Even the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.2787 Public Dept. dt. 12.11.1969 ordered that the adverse remarks less than three years old need not be communicated if the subsequent officer considers that the defects no longer exist. Admittedly, as far as the applicant is concerned, for the subsequent periods, he was rated as 'Very Good', 'Outstanding', etc. Hence, in our opinion the adverse remarks communicated nearly after a period of five years to the applicant is non-est in law and as such, the applicant is to succeed in his challenge made to the adverse entries in OA 514/2011.
13.... 14. For the reasons stated above, OA 514/2011 is allowed and the impugned order in GO (D) 666 Home Dept dt.26.07.2001 of the third respondents is set aside and consequently there will be a direction to the respondent to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the confidential report of the applicant"
"13. As regards the OA 515/2011 is concerned, the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The applicant is challenging the non-inclusion of his name in the 2001 select list nearly after 10 years. If the applicant's contention is accepted, it will disturb the entire administrative hierarchy and the seniority position of several officers which has become final long back. We do not see any reason to grant relief to the applicant in the above application. Accordingly the OA 515/2011 is dismissed."
725 (supra), wherein, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the communication of adverse entries to the person concerned, held that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the annual confidential report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period, so that the employee can make a representation for its upgradation. The Supreme Court further held that the State must be a model employer and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.
True Copy
-s/dAssistant Registrar Sub-Assistant Registrar
sl
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order expunging adverse remarks due to the lapses and delay in communicating them by the State.
Whether the expunging of adverse remarks will affect the administrative hierarchy and seniority positions when the plea for regularization of seniority was dismissed on grounds of laches.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dev Dutt V. Union of IndiaRelied on¶28
(2008) 8 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India & OthersReferred¶16
2009 (16) SCC 146 · Who else cites this
Division Bench of this CourtReferred¶16
W.P.Nos.27045 and 27055 of 2008
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Tamil Nadu
R. Tamil Chandran
The Union of India
Union Public Service Commission
Director General of Police
Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal
R. Sudhakar
S. Vaiyananathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
