S.T. RAMESH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR .

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

""" 
S.T. RAMESH 
A 
-~1--
V. 
ST ATE OF KARNA T AKA AND ANR . 
. , 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
/ 
. .., 
o r 
All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970: Rules 8 & 9. 
c 
Annual Confidential Report-Importance of-Adverse remarks-
Expunging of-JPS officer had been graded as "very good", "excellent" and 
"outstanding" throughout his career-But, for a short period of 150 days, the 
officer's performance had been graded as 'average' with certain adverse 
remarks-The officer filed an application before the Central Administrative D 
Tribunal for quashing of the adverse remarks-The Tribunal dismissed the 
application and also imposed costs on the appellant for using intemperate 
) 
language against the reviewing authority-High Court affirmed the decision-
r 
Correctness of-Held: The confidential report is an important document as 
it provides the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of an 
officer and fiirther achievements in h1~· career-It should be used as a tool E 
for human resource development and is not to be used as a fault finding 
process but a developmental one-The performance of the appellant has 
been consistently of high quality except for a short period of about I 50 
days-Hence, adverse remarks not justified and expunged-Administrative 
Tribunals Act, I 985, S. I 9. 
F 
... 
~ 
The appellant, an IPS Officer, had a consistently good record of service 
and had been graded as "very good", "excellent" and "outstanding" 
throughout his career. The appellant filed an application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal for quashing of the communication of adverse 
remarks under various headings in the Annual Confidential Report for the G 
period from 16.10.1996 to 15.3.1997. 
-
"'-
The Tribunal dismissed the application with costs payable to the second 
respondent for using intemperate language against him. The High Court 
-
819 
H 
v 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence the appeal. 
; 
-.\..-· 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From the remarks made by the different authorities at different 
.,.,.._, 
points of time, it will be evident that the appellant is an officer of outstanding 
B qualities and merit. Except for the impugned remarks made by the reporting 
officer and by the second respondent as the reviewing authority, he has been 
consistently graded as "outstanding", "very good" and "excellent" and has 
also been entrusted with various responsibilities. It is true that in his 
representation he has used intemperate language, mainly against respondent 
'i- -
c No.2, on an erroneous assumption. that the adverse remarks had been made 
by the said respondent, but use of such intemperate language has to be looked 
at objectively after careful consideration of all the Annual Confidential 
Reports·for all the years. It will have to be considered whether the remarks 
made by the reporting officer and the reviewing officer were sufficient in 
themselves to merit the overall assessment of "average" as against the 
D consistently excellent remarks in the confidential reports both before and 
after the period in question. In fact, the remarks of the Additional Chief 
Secretary and Principal Secretary to the Government, Home and Transport 
.( 
Department, while disagreeing with the general assessment made by the 
second respondent of the appellant's performance from 14.7.2000 to 
i 
E 28.2.2001, also merits consideration. [Para 41] [832-C-F] 
2. The confidential report is an important document as it provides the 
basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of an officer and further 
achievements in his career. This Court has held that the performance 
appraisal through C.Rs. should be used as a tool for human resource 
F development and is not to be used as a fault finding process but a developmental 
one. Except for the impugned adverse remarks for a short period of about 
,• 
"+ 
150 days, the performance of the appellant has been consistently of high 
quality with various achievements and prestigious postings and meritorious 
awards from the President of India. The appellant has been graded as "very 
G 
good", "excellent" and "outstanding" throughout his career. It is difficult to 
appreciate as to how it could become adverse during the period of 150 days 
for which the adverse remarks were made. Furthermore, despite such adverse 
_.. 
remarks, the Sta

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