STATE OF U.P. versus YAMUNA SHANKER MISRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 21-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v. 
YAMUNA SHANKER MISRA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 21, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Confidential report~Adverse remarks recorded for the years 1987-88 
and 1988-89 in Confidential reports of the employee-Promotion C 
denied-Claim of employee allowed by the Tribunal holding that the remarks 
made by Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies were due to malice and they smack 
of arbitrariness-Held, the findings recorded by Tribunal of malice and 
arbitrariness on the part of Secretary as affinned by High Court are not 
wa"anted-Since the Secretary was not eo-nominee to the proceedings and 
had no opportunity to explain the position it would be violative of principles D 
of natural justice---Further, since the vigilance inquiry was pending, unless the 
officer was exonerated and cleared from the cloud, Secretary could not clear 
the conduct and integrity of the officer. 
Adverse remarks-Held, should be founded on facts or circumstan-
E 
ce~Though sometimes, it may not be part of record, but the conduct, 
reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be 
within the knowledge of reporting officer-Be[ ore f onning an opinion to be 
adverse, the reporting officer writing confidentials should share the infonna-
tion which is not part of the record with the officer concerned, have the 
information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the F 
record-This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to 
co"ect the e"ors of the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or con-
duct/com1pt proclivity. 
Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, [1964] 5 SCR 683; Delhi 
Transport Corporation v. D. T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors., [1991] Supp. 1 G 
SCC 600; S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 424; 
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kashinath Kher & Ors., [1996] 8 SCC 762; U.P. 
Jal Nigam & Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain & Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 363 and 
Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati & Anr., [1996] 5 · 
sec 103, referred to. 
H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 51-A(j)-Duty of citizen to constantly endeavour to improve 
excellence-Confidential reports of an employee-Held, the object of writing 
confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls is to give an 
opportunity to public servant to improve excellence-Officer entrusted with 
B duty to write confidential reports had a public responsibility and trust to write 
confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately on an overall as-
sessment of the perf onnance of the subordinate officer. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 
c 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 9458(SS) of 1993. 
Rakesh .Dwivedi Adv. Genl., U.P., Arvind Kr. Shukla and Irshad 
D Ahmad for the Appellant. 
K.R. Nagaraja and K.K. Tyagi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Al-
lahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, made on 2.12.19n in Writ Petition 
No. 9458(SS)/93. 
F 
The adverse remarks for the years 1987-88 \ind 1988-89 were 
recorded in the confidential reports of the respondent. As a consequence, 
he was not promoted. When claim was made before the Service Tribunal, 
the Service Tribunal allowed the petition and quashed the adverse remarks 
recorded for the periods from 1.12.1988 to 31.3.1989 and 1.4.1989 to 
G 30.9.1989. While recording that, the Tribunal held that the remarks made 
by the Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies were due to malice and they smack 
of arbitrariness. The High Court on a writ petition, by the impugned order, 
has affirmed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 424, 
H this Court underlined the need to write confidential reports objectively, 
-
" ' 
--
STA TE v. Y.S. MISRA 
373 
·fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner either comment-
A 
ing/downgrading the conduct, character, efficiency or integrity of the of, 
ficer in that behalf. It is stated in para 11 that from the year 1973-74, the 
performance of the duty by the appellant therein was consistently as 
'satisfactory' to 'fair' except for the year 1987-88 in which year he dropped 
down suddenly as an average or below average teacher. In that be

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