MAJOR GENERAL IPS DEWAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 07-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAJOR GENERAL IPS DEW AN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 7, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Service Law 
Promotion-Courl of Inquiry--Adverse remarks based on inquiry-Rep-
C resentation against remarks-Declaration 'Unfit' for promotion-Record sug-
gesting rejection for promotion was based on overall assessment-:Rejection 
of representation subsequent to promotion proceedings-Held promotion 
proceedings were not invalid. 
Adverse Remarks-Can be made on the basis of mere assessment of 
D employee-1.Jnless rule provides no enquiry or opporlunity to represent is 
necessary before making remarks-Nature of adverse remarks-Does not 
cease to be adverse remarks and becomes 'severe displeasure' merely because 
strong language is used. 
E 
Selection Committee-Non-selection of a candidate-1.Jnless rule re-
quires Selection Committee is not obiiged to record reasons. 
A Court of Inquiry constituted against the appellant a Major-
General, reported that as In-charge he committed serious lapses in inves· 
tigating certain cases. On the basis of this report the Chief of Army Staff 
F made remarks for being placed on appellant's service record stating that 
'he failed to appreciate the nuances of cases and to apply his professional 
acumen and experience to the examination of cases. He failed to examine 
the cases in detail and to consider the major issues involved. He is to be 
blamed for mishandling and closing the cases and for acting in a manner 
which is not expected of his rank and the higher responsibility entrusted 
G to him.' Against the said adverse remarks, appellant submitted statutory 
complaint to the Central Government. In the meantime the appellant, 
though senior most, yet was declared unfit for promotion by the Selection 
Board on the basis of his overall profile. Subsequent to the selection 
proceedings his representation against adverse remarks was rejected. 
H Aggrieved with his denial of promotion, the respondent filed a writ petition 
532 
·~ 
\ 
I.P.S. DEWAN v. U.OJ. 
533 
in the High Court complaining that he was not promoted only on account A 
of the said adverse remarks which were made against the procedure and 
in violation of the principles ofnaturaljustice but the same was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that (i) the remarks were void and could not have been taken into account 
because in fact they were "severe displeasure" for which the authorities B 
were bound to issue a show cause notice under a Memorandum dated 5th 
, 
January 1989 which lays down procedure for award of censure to officers; 
(ii) the statutory complaint preferred by the appellant against adverse 
4f. 
remarks ought to have been disposed of before his case came up for 
consideration for promotion; and (iii) no particular reason has been C 
assigned for not selecting the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. There is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the D 
Selection Board. The selection was not based on seniority, but on merit. 
There is no allegation of malafides or bias against the members of the 
Selection Board. All that can be and is suggested against the process of 
selection is that the Board took into consideration the aforesaid adverse 
remarks. Assuming that the said remarks were indeed taken into con-
sideration, the non- selection of the appellant cannot be faulted. Firstly, it E 
cannot~ said that the said remarks alone were the cause of non- selection; 
the non-selection of appellant appears to be based on an overall assess-
ment. Secondly, the statutory complaint preferred by the appellant against 
the said remarks have been rejected by the Central Government, no doubt 
subsequent to the said consideration. The grievance that his statutory F 
complaint ought to have been considered and disposed of before his case 
.-r 
was considered by the Selection board, is merely technical. Had his 
statutory complaint been upheld wholly or partly, this grievance could 
have been merited serious consideration but not when it has been dis-
missed. In the circumstances, the Court cannot sit as an appellate G 
authority over the acts and proceedings of the Selection Board. 
·--......_ 
[539-F-H, 540-A] 
Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, 
Baripada and Anr., [1992] 2 S.C.C. 299 and R.L. Butail v. Union of India 
and Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.R. 55, followed. 
H _ 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A 

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