R. L. BUTAIL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 08-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R. L. BUTAIL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 
September 8, 1970 
55 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, G. K. MrrTER, 
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Departmental Ru/ea--CentraJ WMer and Power Commission (Power 
Wing)-Adverse entries in confidential reports whether must set out 
specific instances justifying them-Whether must be made after reasonable 
opportunity to show cause-Non-promotion on basis of such entries 
whether punishment attracting Art. 31 i of Constitution, 
Fundamental Rules-Rule 56(;)-<:ompulsory retirement-Vr./idity of 
rule-'Public interest.' 
The appellant, an electrical engineer, entered the service of Simla 
Electricity Board in 1934. In 1949 his servi~ were transferred to the 
Central Electricity C-Ommission, later designated as Central Waler and 
Power Commission (Power Wing). 
In 1955 he was also promoted to 
the post of Directo'r and was confirmed as such with effect from 1960. 
There were adverse remarks. in his confidential reports for the years J 964 
and 1965. 
On these being communicated to him he made representation 
asking for specific instances on which adverse information about hin1 had 
been recorded. These representations were rejected. In the meantime the 
question of filling the post of Director (Selection Grade)/Deputy Chief 
Engineer arose. 
Both in !964 and 1965 the appellant was over-looked 
by the Departmental Promotion C-Ommittee· and the Union Public Service 
Commission for this post or that of a n1ember. 
Later with effect fron1 
August 15, 1967, on completion of the age of 55 years he has compul-
sdrily retired under r, 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules made under Art. 
309 of the C-Onstitution. 
The appellant filed three writ petiti0ns in the 
High C-Ourt oi Punjab challenging the validity of the said entries, ;ind the 
said order of compulsory retirement. 
The High Court dismisst.!d all the 
writ petitions. 
Appeal in this C-Ourt was filed with certificate. 
The 
appellant's contentions which fell for consideration were (i) that the said 
two confidential reports were contrary to the Departmental Rules in 
~,.., 
much ait they did not set out specific instances justifying them; (2) that 
they were placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and the 
Public Service Commission before thev were con1municated to him and 
he was prejudiced thereby; (3) that the refusal of the Departmental Pro-
motion CommittCe to recomn1end him for the higher posts and· 0f the 
Public Service Commission to select hint based on such invalid r.:porh 
was also invalid; ( 4) that making an adverse entry which resulted in 
wilhholding promotion to him amounted to a penalty; since no oppor-
tunity was given to him of being heard in this respect, 
th~rc wa_s a 
violation of Art.. 311 of the C-Onstitution; (5) that making an ent\"y without 
holding a departmental inquiry and hearing him wa_s contrary to natural 
justice; (6) that the adverse entries in question were contrary to fact;: 
(7) that the said entries were malc. fide: (8) that the higher posts W 
which he was eligible were promotion an<l not selection posts at the 
relevant time· (9) that the order compulsorily retiring him was bad in 
as much as Funriamental Rule 56(j) was itself invalid: (10) that in an\ 
:56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 2 S.C.ll 
event the order was not made in public interest and was, therefore. con-
trary to the rule and also Arts. 14 and 1 G of the Constitution . 
. HELD : ( 1) An examination of the departmental rules clearly shows 
that a confidential report is intended to be a general assessment of work 
P.erformed by a Government servant subordinate to the reporting auth<>-
nty, that su~h reports are maintained for the purpose of serving as data 
of. comparative merit when questions of promotion, confirmation etc. 
arise. 
They also show that such reports are not ordinarily to oontalli 
specific instances upon which assessments are made except in cases where 
as a result of any specific incident censure or a warning is issued and 
when such warning is by an order to be kept in the personal file of the 
Government servant. n such cases an officer making the order has to give 
reasonable opportunity to the Government servant to present his case. 
The contention, therefore, that the adverse remarks against the appellant 
did not contain specific instances and were, therefore, contrary to the rules 
· could not be sustained. 
Equally unsustainable was the corollary that 
because 

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