SRI M.A. RAJASEKHAR versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 16-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SRI M.A. RAJASEKHAR 
v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.AND ANR. 
AUGUST 16, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Annual Confidential Repolt-Object of-<:ompetent authority and 
reviewing authority should act fairly and objectively in assessing the peifor-
mance of incumbent. 
Tehsildar-Amma/ Confidelltia/ Report-Integrity reported not doubtful 
A 
B 
c 
and work found satisfactory-But adverse re1narks that 'does not act dispas-
sio11ate/y when faced with dilemma'-Remark given without opportunity to 
employee-Held such a remark must be pointed out with reference to specific D 
i11sta11ce-:Employee should be given opportu11ity in cases where he did not 
work objectively-Held'adverse rentark was not consistent with law-Direction 
for expu11ction of adverse remark. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11385 of 
1996. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.92 of the Karnataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 1961 of 1990. 
S.R. Bhat for the Appellants. 
K.L. Taneja for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dated 11.2.1992 made in Application 
No. 1961/90. Admittedly when the appellant was working a5 a Tehsildar an 
F 
G 
Adverse remark has been made for the year 1988-89 as under : 
H 
729 
A 
B 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.CR. 
"Competent, good at getting work done, but does not act dispas-
sionately when faced with dilemma." 
Calling that in question, the appellant filed 0 .A. It is now settled law 
that the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of 
an officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade 
him to various categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and 
average etc. The competent authority and the reviewing authority have to 
act fairly or objectively in assessing the character, integrity and perfor-
mance of the incumbent. It is seen that in the review order various grounds 
on which the various criteria are to be complied with were specifically 
C noted thus : 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"3. A perusal of Annexure-Al goes to show that in most of the 
aspects the work of the Applicant is satisfactory. According to the 
form in which the confidential remarks of the officers is to be 
written, the reporting officer is required to indicate his assessment 
of the officer on the following aspects of his work : 
1. Knowledge of work; 
2. Power of expression; 
3. Power of acquiring general information; 
4. Attention to detail; 
5. Industry; 
6. Judgment; 
7. Speed of disposal; 
8. Willingness to accept responsibility and to take decision 
9. Relationship with subordinates and colleagues; 
10. Public relations; 
11. Integrity. 
The report about all the above aspects is satisfactory. There is no 
adverse report about integrity. However, the underlined remarks 
in Annexure-Al are made. The last sentence in those remarks 
indicates that the intention of the officer who wrote those remarks 
was to treat the remarks as advisory. He has stated that the officer 
should evince more interest. When all the ten aspects of the work 
which are required to be assessed by the rules are satisfactory the 
alleged adverse remarks get considerable diluted and we are of 
the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if the 
M.A RAJASEKHAR v. STATE 
731 
remarks are treated as advisory with a direction that they should A 
not be made use of against the Applicant for any purpose." 
It was found that his integrity was not doubted and his work also in 
all those respects was found to be satisfactory. Under those circumstances, 
the remark that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma" 
must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did 
not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity 
to correct himself of the mistake. He should be given an opportunity in the 
cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no 
such opportunity was given. Even when he acted in dilemma and lacked 
objectivity, in such circumstances, he must be guided by the authority as to 
the manner in which he acted upon. Since this exercise has not been done 
by the respondent, it would be obvious that the above adverse remark was 
not consistent with law. 
Acc

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