Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee's reliance on uncommunicated and expunged adverse confidential roll entries violated natural justice, rendering its decision void and necessitating reconsideration of the appellant's promotion.

Summary

A.K. Choudhary, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Bihar, sought promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) cadre. The Selection Committee excluded him in 1976, relying on adverse entries in his confidential roll for 1973-74 and 1974-75, which were communicated to him only after the decision and later expunged by the State Government. He made representations against those entries, but they were not considered, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition at the admission stage. The Supreme Court held that reliance on uncommunicated and subsequently expunged adverse entries violated the principles of natural justice as laid down in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, rendering the Committee's decision vitiated. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order, directed the Committee to reconsider his promotion, and awarded him seniority and benefits if selected.

Issues considered

Whether reliance on adverse entries in a confidential roll that were not communicated to the officer and later expunged violates natural justice in promotion decisions.
Whether the Selection Committee's decision to exclude the appellant is vitiated and must be set aside.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage.

Legislation cited

Subjects

promotionIndian Police Serviceconfidential rollnatural justiceadverse entryexpungedselection committeewrit petitionadministrative law

Judgment

299 , A

.. AMAR KANT CHOUDHARY

v.

STATE OF BIUAR & ORS.
B
January 3, 1984
(E.S, VENKATARAMIA!l ,AND R,B. MISRA, H.]
·'
Naturaltt1usticr-ruie o.f-a.dver~~e report in confiifential .roil 'nl?f to be acted
upon to deny proniotional ojJpOrtunitieS un!Css. con11nt1nicated and explanation con~
_s,idered,~a.ciing _otherwise vitiates: .decision. . c
The appellant, a directly recruited Deputy, Superintendent of Police' in the
Police Departmen,t .of the Respondent State was conSidered in 1976 for app·ointment ·
as a ml;'.n1bcr of the Inl.ijan Police SerVice u·nder the pr1Jvisions of the Indian Police ·
Service (Recruitn1ent) Rule~, 1954 read with.the Indian· Police Service (Appointment
by pro1notion) Regulations, 1955. The ·sclectioll' Committfe did not include· the.
appellant in the select list because of ·~n adverse entrY. i~ his confideiit.ial ro1i. of
1973-74. T.he appellant was· cOrrmunicated the said adverse entry only in' J977.
which was later on expunged by the .state Governn1ent in DCCenlber 1980. There
were also adverse entries iri the Confid~ntial foll of the appellant.for the year 1974-75
Which were communicated tb him in 1976 and which we;e a·Jso later on expunged
by the.State Government in ·February, 1978.and Octobet 1980. 'ThC Selection
Con1n1ittee nlet again in March 198J, bi.It this tin1e illso did not include the appellant
in the s~lect. list while son1e of his. junio.i:s were included .. The appellant. qu_estioned E
the validity of the decision of the Sclecti-On- Colnmittce in a writ petition before
the !Jigh Court: The High Court disnlisscd the 'writ· pe.iition 'at the stage of
adn1ission. ,. Heo,ce·this appe:i.L ln this appeal the apj:icllant urged that the Selection·
ComcTiittee was· wrong in relying upon the ·adverse entries ,vhich had been n1ade
in ·his collfidential rOI.ls \vhich had noi beep either. con1munica.ted to hin1 or against
which he.had n1ade representation \vhich had·r-emained undisposed Of and.which
had been subseqlleJ?.tlY expunged. ' ·' F
Apowing ihe apµ,eal,

~Ef,,D: The principle is. \veil settled tha~ in a~cord<ince With the rules of
natural justice; an adverse rejJort ~n a. c011.fiden~ial roll cannot be acted upon to
deny promoti.o"nal oifportunities Unless it is comri;tUaicated to the person concerned
so· that h6 has an opportunity to improve hiS \vork and conduct or to explain the ·G.>
circumstances leading to •the report. Suen all opporturiitY:iS not <l;Il empty formality,

.
its object, partiillly, being to enable the superior authorities to deeide· on, a con-
sideration of the explanation o.ffered~by
report is justified. [302 F]
.
the Person concerned,. whether . the adverse

Gurdial Singh FUji v. State_ of ~unjab & Ors., [1979] 3 S.C ..R:.·518; referred to. H
Jn the instant c.'.l.se, the case of the appeilant for pro1notion to· the Ttldian
,

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2 s.c.R.

A ·Police "Service Cadre .had ·not been considCrcd by the committee in a just and fair
way and his case has been disposed Of contrary to the principles laid dow9 in the
Gurdial Singh Ffjji's ca·se. The decisions of the Selection Committee recorded at
its meetings in which thci case of the appellant was Considered are vitiated by reason
of reliance being placed on the adverse re~arks which were later on· expunged~ ThC
High-Court committed an error in. dismisSing the petition of the appellant. _The
appellant hp.s made out a case for reconsideration of the question of his prornotion.
to the Indian Police Service ~adre of thC State of Bihar as on Dece'mber 22, i976.
·B The Selec.tion _Co1nn1iUee has .now to /econsider 'the case of"'the -appellatit accor-
dingly. [104 B-G]. '

R.L. i3utail v. Union of India & Ors., (1971] 2 S.C.R. 55. distinguished.
I
In order tO,avoid a contingency; as arose.i~ this case, the Gofcrnment 1nay

c consider the introduction of a system in which the officer who has to make entries
·in thci confidential roll-1nay be required to record his remarks. in the presence of
the.,.·Officer against Whom remarks are proposed to be made after giving him an
opportunity to explain ahy circumstance that may apPear to be against him with
the right .to -niake rePrcsentation to higher authorities agairlst any °adverse remarks.
·Another system which may be introduced. is to ask the officer who records the
confidential remarks to serve a cop"y of such remarks on the officer concerned before
the confidential rOU is sllb1nittcd to the higher authorities so that hiS iespresentation
D against the remarks may also reach- the higher auth9rity shortly after th_e confiden- .
tial roll is received. This would curtail the delay in taking action on the representa- ·
iton. [105 B-0] .

·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 8491 of .1983.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 5th October, 1982 of the
.. ~Patna High Court at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 1420 of 1982 .

.P.R. Mridul, and M.P. Jha,. for the.Appellant.

i. · B.B: Singh, for the Respondents
.F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,

. VENKATARAMIAH, 1:
This is an appeal by special leave against
the order dated: October 5, 1982 in·c.W.J.C. No'. 1420 of 1982 on the
file of the High Court of Patna dismissing the petition filed by the
.G appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.-

The facts of the case ·are these ; The appellant
.
was directly
recruited and appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the
.
·Police Department of the State of Bihar in the year 1964. Jn 1973
H he was eligible to be considered for appointment as a member of the ·
Indian Police Service under the provisions of the Indian.Police Service
A.K. CHOUDEARY v. BIHAR (Venkataramfah, J.) . 301

(Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') A
read with the Indian Police. Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, !955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations_') framed
under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules. His case was placed before
. the Committee constituted under Regulation 4 of the Regulations
for the purpose of preparation of the list of suitable officers for pro-
motion to the Indian Police Service Cadre of the State of Bihar in

l 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. In the years 1973, 1974 and.1975, he
could not be included in the select list as he was junior 50 thos_e who

a..
• l
were included inthe·select list. In the_ year 1976 his name was not.
included in :the select list as ·there was an adverse· entry "in his
confidential roll of 1973-74. The reasons given b,v the _Committee
for superseding the appellant based on. the confidential roll were· c
these : ·

"Delayed ·disposal of pending papers and supcrv;sicn
notes. 'Inadequate control over office, judgment," initiative,
sense of responsioility and ~anagement reported to be just
fair. Censured by State Govt. order Cit. 20th Oct., 1975." D
. '
The Selection Co_mmiitee took_· the decision to supersede the
appellant at its meeting held on Decembe.r 22, 1976 ·in. view of !l~e
above entry in t~e confidential roll of the appellant. It. is not disputed
th~t the_ said adverse entry was communica.ted to the appellant in the
year 1977 after the above meeting was· over. It appears thaf there E
.
were also adverse entries in the annual confide~tial
.
roll of the appellant
for the year 1974-7-5. They were communicated to tlfe appellant
·in the year 1976. The appellant made representations in respect
of.both the adverse entries in time, His main 'grievance was that tl~y .
had been made by his official superior who was· biased against him.
The adverse entry m·ade in the confidential roll for the year 1973-74 F
was expunged by the State Govern~ent on December 3, 1980 and the
adverse entries in the confidential roll for the, year 1974-75 were
expunged by two orders dated February21, 1978 and October 7, J980. ·
There was.no meeting of the Selection Committee from 1977 to 1980.
It, however, met on March ll/12, !.981. ·on thi; ·occasion the
appellant represented to the Committee \jlat the adverse entries in his
confidential rolls had been removed by the State · Governmrnt by
various orders and requested them to consider his case for promotion
·to the Indian Police Service. Cadre. . On this occasion ti1e Committee
did not look into the confidential rolls of the appellant for the years
1979-80 _and 1980:81 which eontain~d entries' very favourable to· the H
appellant for no fault of the appellant .. The' Co.mmittee,' however,
.302 SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c,R.

A. classified bi!n as.'good' .but did not inciude. him in the sekct list while
some of his juniors, were included. The appellant 'represented to the
'committee and the State· Government ag,'.inst tl;e decision taken by·
the Committee. -the Committee again 'met on October 14, 1981.
When nothing came out- of the- representations made ·by him,' tl'.c
appellant filed.a writ petition· questioning th validity. of the dccisioi:s
B' of the Selection Committee before the,. High Court of Patna. The
petition was·dismissed at.the stage of admissicn. ·This appeal is filed
by special leave against the. ordef of the High Court;
~. ' .
The main point urged before us is that the Selection Committee 411
had committed, ah illegali.ty in rejcctin·g th.c daim .of the app~l!ant fer
c being included in the select list in th~ Y.ear ·1976 by relying upcn tl~e
adverse entries whiCh had been made. in his confidential rolls which
had' not been either' .commu;1icated to him or against which. he had
.made representation which had remained undisposcd of and which
_.had been subsequently expunged. .·

n ' · The true legal position· governing such cases is laid down by this
Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Y. State~[ Punjab & Ors.'''. which was a
case arising under. the Indian Adminis.trative Service (Appointment ·
by Promoti:in) Regulations, 195~ which more or Ics.s correspond to
· the Regulations applicable to the Indian Po life Service. Jn tbe 'aboyc
case' .Chandrachud,.C.J.
. has observed thus . :

"The principle is weJl'.settled that· in accordanc~. with
the rules of natural jlistice, all adverse·. rcpcrt ln a cOnfidtntial
roll cannot be. acted upon to deny promotional opportu.nities
unless itfs communicated to the .person con.cerned so. that.
. . , • he has .an opportunity 'to improve his work arid conduct or .
F fo explain: the circumst.ances leadjng to the )'eport. Such
an oppoitunity is not _an empty fotmality, its object, .par-
. · tial!y, being to enable the superior authorities .to decide on
a consideration of the explanation offered by the person
concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Un- , .
' . fortunatel'y, for one reason or another.,. not arising out of
G any fauli on the: part of ·the. appellant, tliongh the adverse
report was communicat~d to hiin, the Government has not
been able to consider his explanation and decide whether
the report was justified. In these circumstances It i's didilcult
· to suppoti the non-issuance of. the integrity certificate to
H
(I) [1979] 3 S.C.R. SIS.
A.K. CHO.UDIIARY v. BIHAR ·cvenkataramieh, f)' 303

the appeJlimt. The chain or reaction .began with the adverse A
report and. the infirmity in the link -of causation is that no ·
one .has vet deciccd whether that rcpcrt was justified. We
cann.ot speculate, in the absence cif a pr~per p!ea<,ling, whether
the appellant was not four.ct· suital;'e _otherwise, that. is to
say, for reasons other than. those connected with the n<Yn-
is~uarice of an .integrity .certifiC'ate to hin1." B
. . ·. . .

It is ~ot disi:.uted that the c'.&csilirnticn d" cfiicers· whose ca><s
are taken up for·considerati()n into 'outstanding', 'very .l'ccd', 'geed'
or 'bad' etc. for .pmposes o( promotion to tl\e Indian 'folice ~ervice
·Cadre is mainly based upon the remarks in the confi<;lential rolls.
On December 22; J 976, when the Selection Committq' met, the
adverse remarks,in the ~onfidential roll for 1973-74 had. not peen
· communkated.·and the appellant's ·representatio11 ·1egarding a_dvetse
remarks in the confidential roil for the year J<;74-7) and censure
against him had not. been disposed .cif clthough it is alkged that one
. '""'· Shri Yamuna Ram agai1lst whon1 ~dso r.dvcrse ren1rrks ·had been .
. made was included provisicnally in,the '°!eel list · When the Selection D
Committee met on March 11 and 12, 1981 despit~ State. Governm!'nl's
·suo nrofli decision not to retain actverse rem.arks for ·01e year ·1976-'77
on records, the same had not been removed· froll) the confidential
roll, This must have infim.nced ihe decision of the Selection Com-
1™ttee. lt is also seen that the confidential rolls of the appella;it
for the year l 979-80. and' 1980-81 which contained eniries favour.able E
to the 'lppellant were n;t placed before the Selection Committee.
On October 14, 1981 when the Selection Committee met, it does not
·appear to haw considered _the representation made by_ the appellant
against his non-selection.. hi addit.ion to all these, the State Govern-
ment has expunged t\1e adverse remarks by its orde!S made from time.
to time. These facts are not controverted by .the respondents.
' . . . 0
F

... The fac'ts of this case are distinguishable fron1 the facts irivolved
in the decision of this Court in R.L. Butail v.Union of India & -Ors,'"
which is relied on by the respondents. In that· case the confidential
report _of the appel\ant !h~rein for the year "1964 contain~d an adverse
entry and he had made a representation regarding it. When ·the G
Departmental Promotion Committee met in March, '1966, the
..... appellant's . represe~tation regarding the adverse entry of ]964 was
not placed before it and a decisio'n adverse to the ~ppellant w·as taken
by the Commiitee witl1ont reference to the said 1;epresentation.. The
H
. . (1) [!971] 2 S.C.R. SS.

•
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R.

A appellant contended before this Court tl\at th~ omission to consider
his 'representation before th~ date of meeting of the Commiitee vitiated ""'
its decision. The Court held that the .omission either to place the
said representation before the Committee or its '.•non-corisiderati~n
before the date ·of the meeting had no effect on the decision of the
Committee as the represe~tation had actuaily been rejected subse-
B quently with the result that the confidential report for the ·year 1964
remained unchanged. The position in the case before us is different.
_Herc the adverse entries in question have in fact been expunged by · ~
· · the State Government subseq·uently. It may be pertinent to state
here that the" practice of the Departmental Promotion ·Committee· ·
referred to in Butail's case (supra) was that if in such a case a rep- .. ..
c resenta.tion were to be accepted .and. in consequenc' the. confidential
report .was altered or the adverse.entries were expun.ged the Committee
would have to review its recommendations in the light of such a result. '
The appellant in the present case has pressed before us for a ·similar
relief as the adverse entries. made against him have been .since expunged.
.

D After giving our anxious consideration t.o the uncontroverled
material placed before us we have reached the ·conclusion that the
case of the appellant for promotion to the Indian . Police Service
Cadre has not been considei·ed by 'the Committee in a just and fair
.way 'and his case ,has been ·disposed of contrary to the principles laid
down in Gurdial _Singh Fijji's case (supra). The decisions of the Seleo- -1'
E . tion Committee Tecorded .at its· meetin-gs in which the case of the
appellant was consideretl are vitiated by reason of reliance being (
placed on· the adverse remarks which were later. on expunged. The
High Court :committed .an error in dismissing the petition· of the
1
appellant and· its order is, therdorc, liable to be set aside. We
accorditigly set aside the order of the High Court. .We hold that the
F · appellaJ¥ has made oµt a case for reconsideration of the question )- •
0f his promotion tci .the Indian Police Service Cadre of the State of
'Bihar · as oil" December 22, 1976 and if he is not ~elected as on that
date for being considered again as on March 12, 1981. If he is not
sejected as on March.12, 1981 his.case has to be considered as on
October 14, 1981. The Selection Committ~e has now to reconsider
G the case of the appellant accordingly after taking into consideration
the orders pas~ed by the State "Government subsequently on any
adverse entry that may have heen m~de earlier and any other order ·-/.
of similar nature pertaining to the service of the ·appellant If on such
· reconsideration the: appellant is selected he shall be entitled to the
.H seniority and all other consequential benefits flowing therefrom. We
issue a .dir~ction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the .
•
A.K. CHOUDHARY v, BIHAR (Venkataramiah, J.) . 305

appellant ·as stated above. We hope that the above direction will A
·~- be complied with expeditiously but not later than four months from
~- today. ·

Before concluding we wish to state that the ·Central Government
·and the State Governments should now .examine whether .the present
system· of maintenance of confidential rolls should ·be ·continued. B
Under the present system, entries are first made in the confidential
roll of an officer b.ehind. his back and then he is given an opportunity
to make a representation against any entry that may have been made
against him by communicating the adverse. entry after considerable
delay. Any representation made by him would be considered b~ a
higher authority or the State Government or the Central Government, c
as the qse may be, some years later, as it has happened in th_is' case,
by which time any evidence that may be ihere to show that the entries
made were baseless. may have vanished. The preqicament in which
.. the officer against whom .adve~se remarks are made. is then placed
can easily be visualised.. ·Even the authority which has got to pass
orqers ·on the representation.of the officer will find .it difficult to deal D
with the matter satisfactorily after a long interval of time .. Jn the
meanwhile the· officer concerned would have missed ·many opportu-
ties which would have advanced 'his prospects in the serviCe.. Jn
order ·to avoid such a centingency, the Government inay consider
the introduction of a systein in which the officer who has to make
entries in the confidential roll may be required to record his. remarks E
in the presence ·of the officer against whom remarks are proposed

-
to be made after giving him an opportunity to' explain any circumstance
·that may appear to be agafost him with the righ!'to make represe,pta-
tion to higher authori.ties against any adverse remarks. This cou.rse
may obviate many time~ totally baseless remarks being made ·in tJie
confidential roll an"d would minimise the unnecessary snffering to F
which the officer concerned will be exposed. Another system which.
may be introduced is. to ask the officer who rec.ords the cc;mfidential
remarks to serve ·a copy of such remarks on the officer concerned
before the confidential roll is submitted to the higher authorities so
. that his representation against th~ remarks may also reach the higher
· authority shortly after the confidential roll is received. This would G
.'
curtail the delay in taking action on the representation. Suspensions,·
adverse remarks in confidential rolls and frequent transfers from
one ·place to another are ordered or made many a time without justifi-
cation and without giving a reasonable opportunity to ·the officer
concerned and such actions· surely result in the demoralisation of the ·H
services. Courts can. give very little relief in such . cases. The
•
SUPREME COuRT REPORTS [1984]2 S.C.R.

A Executive itself should, therefore, devise effective mearis to mitigate
the.hardship caused to the officers who are subjected. to such treatmen\. "*
These questions require to be examined afresh in the light of the
experience gained in. recent ·years and solutions should be found to
ell1,;inate as f~r as p.ossible 6omplaints against mi;use of these powers
by official superiors who may not be well disposed towards the officer
B· . against whom such action. is taken. It is· needle<is to state that a
non-disgruniled bureaucracy adds to the efficiency of administration .

. The ·appeal is accordingly allowcc! with 'costs.

H.S.K. Appeal allowed.

·. /':-·

.... \
~

-