LexRAJU NARYANA SWAMY versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1723 : 2025 INSC 563 Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025) 23 April 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was rightly denied the promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary. Headnotes† IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 – Promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary – Denial of – General Guidelines for Promotion etc. and functioning of Screening Committees – 90% of updated and complete ACRs/PARs of an officer were required for promotion – Though 90% of the appellant’s ACRs were not written, he was considered as a special case based on available ACRs – Screening Committee found the appellant ineligible for promotion since 90% of his ACRs were not available – Review rejected by Review Committee – Challenge thereto dismissed by CAT – High Court gave liberty to the appellant to approach the authorities for generation of 90% of the ACRs and reconsideration of his case – Review Committee, if could have considered the adverse entries made in ACRs/PARs prior to the appellant’s earlier promotion in 2016 to the grade of Principal Secretary and whether it considered extraneous materials in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for review, as alleged: Held: The Committee was entitled to consider the entire service record of the appellant while considering him for promotion to the highest echelons of civil service – If the service record of the officer post promotion shows a similar trend of lack of discipline or interpersonal skills as reflected in the earlier entries, it may lend assurance to conclusion of the Committee that the earlier * Author 1724 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports promotion has not invigorated the officer concerned and he continues to dwell in similar aberrations justifying the denial of further promotion – Review Committee on examining the entire service record of appellant noted that in 2019-20 appellant had absented himself for about a year without justifiable cause – A show cause notice was also issued in this regard – Said period was treated as ‘non-duty’ i.e. absence without leave – This conduct was taken into consideration to deny promotion to appellant to the highest echelon of civil service – Thus, it cannot be said that the decision of the Review Committee was solely based on adverse entries in ACRs/PARs prior to promotion or on uncommunicated observations in the Fact Finding report – Committee was justified in giving due weightage to lack of adherence to discipline and collegiality – Furthermore, on facts, there was a fair and objective assessment by Review Committee after taking into consideration both commendations and adverse conduct of appellant – Decision of the Committee was neither mala fide nor unreasonable. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 24] Case Law Cited Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 573 : (2000) 8 SCC 395 – relied on. Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa [1989] 3 SCR 803 : (1989) 4 SCC 664; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2010] 11 SCR 216 : (2010) 10 SCC 693; High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Shyam Deo Singh & Ors. [2014] 4 SCR 541 : (2014) 4 SCC 773 – referred to. List of Acts IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016. List of Keywords Civil service; Promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary; Promotional grade cadre; Chief Secretary grade; 90% of updated and complete ACR/PARs; 90% of the appellant’s ACRs were not written; ACR/PARs; Ineligible for promotion; Promotion denied; Promotion to highest grade; Special case; impact of prior entries in ACRs on promotion; Adverse entries in ACRs/PARs prior to promotion; Discipline, decorum and collegiality; Fair and objective assessment; [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1725 Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors. Self-appraisal forms; Service record; Dishonesty or lack of integrity; Lack of discipline; Interpersonal skills; Non-duty i.e. absence without leave; Threaten to sue for defamation; Collective leadership. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2023 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OPCAT No. 21 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: R Basant, Sr. Adv., Subhash Chandran K.R, Ms. Krishna L R, Raunak Arora. Advs. for the Respondents: V. Giri, Jayanth Muth Raj, Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Advs., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.