AMAR KANT CHOUDHARY versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 03-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

299 
.. AMAR KANT CHOUDHARY 
v. 
STATE OF BIUAR & ORS. 
January 3, 1984 
(E.S, VENKATARAMIA!l ,AND R,B. MISRA, H.] 
Naturaltt1usticr-ruie o.f-a.dver~~e report in confiifential .roil 'nl?f to be acted 
upon to deny proniotional ojJpOrtunitieS un!Css. con11nt1nicated and explanation con~ 
_s,idered,~a.ciing _otherwise vitiates: .decision. 
. 
The appellant, a directly recruited Deputy, Superintendent of Police' in the 
Police Departmen,t .of the Respondent State was conSidered in 1976 for app·ointment · 
as a ml;'.n1bcr of the Inl.ijan Police SerVice u·nder the pr1Jvisions of the Indian Police · 
Service (Recruitn1ent) Rule~, 1954 read with.the Indian· Police Service (Appointment 
by pro1notion) Regulations, 1955. The ·sclectioll' Committfe did not include· the. 
appellant in the select list because of ·~n adverse entrY. i~ his confideiit.ial ro1i. of 
1973-74. T.he appellant was· cOrrmunicated the said adverse entry only in' J977. 
which was later on expunged by the .state Governn1ent in DCCenlber 1980. There 
were also adverse entries iri the Confid~ntial foll of the appellant.for the year 1974-75 
Which were communicated tb him in 1976 and which we;e a·Jso later on expunged 
by the.State Government in ·February, 1978.and Octobet 1980. 'ThC Selection 
Con1n1ittee nlet again in March 198J, bi.It this tin1e illso did not include the appellant 
in the s~lect. list while son1e of his. junio.i:s were included .. The appellant. qu_estioned 
the validity of the decision of the Sclecti-On- Colnmittce in a writ petition before 
the !Jigh Court: The High Court disnlisscd the 'writ· pe.iition 'at the stage of 
adn1ission. ,. Heo,ce·this appe:i.L ln this appeal the apj:icllant urged that the Selection· 
ComcTiittee was· wrong in relying upon the ·adverse entries ,vhich had been n1ade 
in ·his collfidential rOI.ls \vhich had noi beep either. con1munica.ted to hin1 or against 
which he.had n1ade representation \vhich had·r-emained undisposed Of and.which 
had been subseqlleJ?.tlY expunged. 
' 
·' 
Apowing ihe apµ,eal, 
~Ef,,D: The principle is. \veil settled tha~ in a~cord<ince With the rules of 
natural justice; an adverse rejJort ~n a. c011.fiden~ial roll cannot be acted upon to 
deny promoti.o"nal oifportunities Unless it is comri;tUaicated to the person concerned 
, A 
B 
·' 
c 
E 
F 
so· that h6 has an opportunity to improve hiS \vork and conduct or to explain the 
·G.> 
circumstances leading to •the report. Suen all opporturiitY:iS not <l;Il empty formality, 
its object, partiillly, being to enable the superior authorities to deeide· on, a con-
sideration of the explanation o.ffered~by the Person concerned,. whether the adverse 
. 
. 
. 
report is justified. [302 F] 
Gurdial Singh FUji v. State_ of ~unjab & Ors., [1979] 3 S.C .. R:.·518; referred to. 
H 
Jn the instant c.'.l.se, the case of the appeilant for pro1notion to· the Ttldian 
A 
·B 
I 
c 
D 
E 
.F 
, 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1984) 2 s.c.R. 
·Police "Service Cadre .had ·not been considCrcd by the committee in a just and fair 
way and his case has been disposed Of contrary to the principles laid dow9 in the 
Gurdial Singh Ffjji's ca·se. 
The decisions of the Selection Committee recorded at 
its meetings in which thci case of the appellant was Considered are vitiated by reason 
of reliance being placed on the adverse re~arks which were later on· expunged~ ThC 
High-Court committed an error in. dismisSing the petition of the appellant. _The 
appellant hp.s made out a case for reconsideration of the question of his prornotion. 
to the Indian Police Service ~adre of thC State of Bihar as on Dece'mber 22, i976. 
The Selec.tion _Co1nn1iUee has .now to /econsider 'the case of"'the -appellatit accor-
dingly. [104 B-G]. 
' 
R.L. i3utail v. Union of India & Ors., (1971] 2 S.C.R. 55. distinguished. 
In order tO,avoid a contingency; as arose.i~ this case, the Gofcrnment 1nay 
consider the introduction of a system in which the officer who has to make entries 
·in thci confidential roll-1nay be required to record his remarks. in the presence of 
the.,.·Officer against Whom remarks are proposed to be made after giving him an 
opportunity to explain ahy circumstance that may apPear to be against him with 
the right .to -niake rePrcsentation to higher authorities agairlst any °adverse remarks. 
·Another system which may be introduced. is to ask the officer who records the 
confidential remarks to serve a cop"y of such remarks on the officer concerned before 
the confidential rOU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.