DR. H. MUKHERJEE AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 28-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. H. MUKHERJEE AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 
[AM. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Service Law-Selection by Union Public Service Commission---lnitia-
tion of CBI enquiry and communication of adverse remark against selected 
candidate subsequent to selection-Government rejecting the recommendation 
A 
B 
of U.P.S.C. taking into account events subsequent to selection-Validity of C 
Government's decision-Held events subsequent to selection can be taken into 
account for adjudgi.ng suitability of candidates. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 320 and 323 Public Service Com-
mission-Selection made by-Held recommendatmy--Government can by-
pass the recommendation of Commission for valid reasons-Government's D 
decision can be challenged on the ground of mala fide or arbitrariness. 
'S' was selected by the Union Public Service Commission on June 10, 
1987 for the post of Chief Controller of Explosives. On June 18, 1987 the 
approval of Appointments Committee of Cabinet, (ACC) was sought. While· E 
the matter was pending before the ACC, a C.B.I. inquiry was initiated 
against S and consequently the ACC could not process the proposal. The 
inquiry ended in his exoneration in December, 1987 and immediately there-
after when the ACC considered the proposal of his appointment it was 
found that in the Annual Confidential Report of 1987 there was an adverse 
remark made by Reviewing Authority which was communicated to 'S' on F 
May 20, 1988 and in regard to which he had made a representation on June 
10, 1988. Till that representation was disposed of on October 4, 1988, the 
ACC could not take a decision on the question whether or not to accept the 
recommendation of the U.P.S.C. That representation was partially allowed 
and the remark was partially expunged. The ACC took into consideration G 
the adverse remark made subsequent to the recommendation of U.P.S.C. 
and came to the conclusion that 'S' was not suitable for appointment. 
'S' challenged the decision of ACC before the Central Administration 
Tribunal which held that (i) the ACC was not justified in taking into 
consideration the events subsequent to the recommendation of U.P.S.C H 
529 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A viz., the communication of adverse remarks and the initiation of C.B.I. 
inquiry against 'S' for by-passing the recommendation of the U.P.S.C., (ii) 
the decision of the ACC was not sustainable in law because it had assigned 
no reasons for rejecting the recommendation made by U.P.S.C. According-
ly, the Tribunal remitted the matter to ACC to reconsider the suitability 
B of S for appointment without taking into consideration the adverse 
remarks made in the year 1987 and the outcome of C.B.I. inquiry. 
Against the decision of the Tribunal, appeals were filed in this Court. 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
C Court 
D 
E 
HELD : 1. There is nothing in Article 323 or in the rules to suggest 
that the Government cannot take into consideration the developments 
subsequent to the selection made by the U.P.S.C. Such a view would not 
be in public interest and may lead to serious complications if the Govern-
ment is enjoined to made the appointment notwithstanding certain serious 
matters having come to its notice subsequent to the recommendation made 
by the Commission. All that Article 323 requires is that along with the copy 
of the report of the Commission a Memorandum containing the reason for 
declining to accept the recommendations of the Commission should be 
placed before the concerned legislature. Therefore, the Tribunal wrongly 
thought that subsequent events could not be taken into consideration. 
[537-F, 536-H, 539-C] 
2. The Tribunal is not right in coming to tbe coqclusion that no 
reason had been given by the ACC for departing from the recommendation 
F 
of the U.P.S.C. The reason for declining to accept the recommendation of 
the U.P.S.C. is the adverse remark made in the Confidential Report for 
the year 1987. This reason for disapproval was stated on file. [537-A-B] 
3. The function of the Public Service Commission being advisory, the 
G Government may for valid reasons to be recorded on the file, disapprove 
of the advice or recommendation tendered by the Commission, which 
decision can, if at an, be tested on the limited ground of it being thoroughly 
arbitrary, malafide or capricious. In the circumstances of the case, it 
cannot be said

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