Holding

A superior administrative authority is not legally obliged to record or communicate reasons when rejecting a government servant's representation, and such orders are not invalid merely for the absence of reasons.

Summary

The respondent, a Section Officer, challenged adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report. After making a representation against those remarks, the Ministry of Commerce rejected it without giving reasons, and the President partially expunged some remarks. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed both the Ministry's and the President's orders for lack of reasons. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a superior authority is not legally required to record or communicate reasons when rejecting a civil servant's representation, as such rejection does not affect any vested right or civil consequence. Consequently, the orders were not vitiated for the absence of reasons, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside. The appeal was allowed, restoring the original orders.

Issues considered

Whether a superior administrative authority must record reasons when rejecting a government servant's representation against adverse remarks.
Whether the absence of recorded reasons renders the order vitiated under principles of natural justice.
Whether the President's order rejecting the representation is invalid for lack of reasons.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in quashing the orders on the ground of no reasons being given.

Subjects

natural justiceadministrative lawconfidential reportadverse remarksrepresentationreasons for decisioncivil servantjudicial reviewprocedural fairness

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
E.G. NAMBUDIRI

APRIL 23, 1991

[K.N. SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) B

Service Law-Civil Servant-Confidential reports-Adverse
remarks-Representation against adverse remarks-Rejection of rep-
resentation-Held rejection of representation neither adversely affects
any vested right of Government servant nor does visit him with any civil
consequences-In the absence of any statutory rule or provision the com-
petent authority is under no obligation to record or communicate
c
reasons for its decision to Government servant.

Confidential report-Remarks about integrity of employee,
"Nothing adverse has come to notice"-Held neutral and not adverse in
nature. D

Administrative Law-Administrative authority-Natural justice
-Duty to give reasons.

The respondent, a Section Officer in the office of the Chief Con-
troller of Import and Exports, was communicated adverse remarks for E
the year 1984. He made a representation against the adverse remarks
but the same was rejected by the Ministry of Commerce by its order
dated 6.1.1986. Thereafter be made a Memorial to the President and the
Government. by its order dated 14.8.86 partially expunged the adverse
remarks. The respondent filed a petition before the Central Adminis-
' trative Tribunal challenging the order rejecting bis representation on F
the ground that it did not contain any reasons. The Tribunal by its
order dated 27. 7.87 quashed both the orders dated 6.1.86 as well as
14.8.86 by holding that the orders were vitiated in law in the absence of
reasons. In appeal to this Court by the Union of India, it was contended
on behalf of the respondent that the principles of natural justice require
the superior authority to record reasons in rejecting the Government G
servant's representation made against the adverse remarks as the order
of rejection alTected the respondent's right.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1. The superior authority while considering the represen- H

451
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A tation or a Government servant against adverse remarks, is not
required by law to act judicially, it is under no legal obligation to record
or communicate reasons for its decision to the Government servant.
There is no rule or administrative order for recording reasons in reject-
ing such a representation. In the absence of any statutory rule or statu.
tory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in
B - rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the
adverse entries the competent authority is not under any obligation to
record reasons. The decision, rejecting such a representation does not
adversely affect any vested right or the Government servant nor does it
visit him with any civil consequences. It does not'mean that the compe-
tent authority has licence to act arbitrarily, he must act in a fair and
C just manner. He is required to consider the questions raised by the
Government servant and examine the same, in the light of the com-
ments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer
counter-signing the Confidential Reports. If the representation is
rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of
rejection wonld not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence
D of reasons. In many cases having regard to inf"mite variations of
circumstances it may not be possible to disclose reasons, for the opinion
formed about the work and conduct or character of the Government
.:~
servant. However, it does not mean that the administrative authority is
at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same.
In Governmental functioning before any order is issued the matter is
E generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are
contained in the notes on the me. The reasons contained in the me
enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. If the order as
communicated to the Government servant rejecting the representation
does not contain any reasons the order cannot be held to be bad in law.
If such an order is challenged in a court of law it is always open to the
,F competent authority to place the reasons before the Court which may
have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an
administrative authority to pFoduce evidence aU-unde before the court
to justify its action. [459G·H, 460A, E-F·H, 46IA-B]

Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 518,
0 referred to.

2. The President was under no legal obligation to record reasons
in rejecting the respondent's representation against the adverse
remarks. Consequently, the order of the President was not vitiated in
law. The Central Administrative Tribunal committed error in quashing
H the order of the President as well as the order of the Ministry of Com-
U.0.1. v. E.G. NAMBUDIRI 453

merce dated 6.1.1986. Accordingly, the Tribunal's order dated
27.7.1987issetaside. [461C-E] -- A

3. The purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscar-
riage of justice and the principles of natural justice are applicable to
administrative orders if such orders affect the right of a citizen. Arriv-
ing at the just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial as well as B
administrative enquiry, an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry
may have more far reaching effect than decision in a quasijudicial
enquiry. Generally, principles of natural justice require that oppor-
tunity of hearing should be given to the person against whom an
administrative order is passed. The application of principles of natural
justice, and its sweep depend upon the nature of the right involved,
having regard to the setting and context of the statutory provisions. c
Where a vested right is adversely affected by an administrative order,
or where civil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice apply
even if the statutory provisons do not make any express provision for
the same, and the person concerned must be afforded opportunity of
hearing before the order is passed. But principles of natural justice do D
'>.·. not require the administrative authority to record reasons for its deci-
sion as there is no general rule that reasons must be given for
administrative decision. Order of an administrative authority which
has no statutory or implied duty to state reasons or the grounds of its
decision is not rendered illegal merely on account of absence of reasons.
It has never been a principle of natural justice that reasons should be E
given for decisions., [458H, 459A-D]

State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., [1967] 2 SCR
625; Mo hinder Singh Gill & Ors. v. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi & Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 272; A.K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., [1970] 1SCR457 andRegina v. Gaming Board for Great p
Britain ex. p. Benaim and Khaida, [1970] 2 QB 417, referred to.

3.1. Though the principles of natural justice do not require
reasons for decisi11n, there is necessity for giving reasons in view of the
expanding law of judicial review to enable the citizens to discover the
reasoning behind the decision. Right ti. reasons is an indispensable part G
of a sound system of judicial review. Under oui' Constitution an
administrative decision is subject to judicial review if it affects the right
of a citizen, it is therefore desirable that reasons should be stated. [459F]

4. Ordinarily'· Courts and Tribunals, adjudicating rights of
parties, are reqljired to act judicially and to record reasons. Where an H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 2 S.C.R.

A administrative authority is required to act judicially it is also under an
obligation to record reasons. But every administrative authority is not
under any legal obligation to record reasons for its decision, although, it
is always desirable to record reasons to avoid any snspicion. Where a _j

statute requires an authority though acting administratively to record
reasons, it is mandatory for the authority to pass speaking orders and in
B the absence of reasons the order would be rendered illegal. But in the
absence of any statutory or administrative requirement to record
reasons, the order of the administrative authority is not rendered illegal
for absence of reasons. If any challenge is made to the validity of an
order on the ground of it being arbitrary or ma/a fide it is always open
to the antbority concerned to place reasons before the Court which may
have persuaded it to pass the orders. Snch reasons most already exist on
c records as it is not permissible to the authority to support the order by
reasons not contained in the records. Reasons are not necessary to be
communicated to the Government servant. If the statutory rules
require communication of reasons, the same must be communicated but
in the absence of any such provision absence of communication of
D reasons do not affect the validity of the order. [457H, 458A·C I

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1976
of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27. 7 .1987 of the Central
E Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in Regn. No. 0.A. No. 511of1986.

V.C. Mahajan, C.V.S. Rao, A.K. Srivastava and P. Parmeshwa-
ran for the Appellants. ·,."
Dr. D.C. Vohra, P.K. Bansal and S.K. Bisaria for the
F Respondent.

The Judgment of Court was delivered by

SINGH, J. Leave granted.

G This appeal is directed against the order of the Central .•
-~

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, quashing the order
of the Ministry of Commerce dated 6.1.1986 rejecting the respondent's
representation against the adverse remarks awarded to him.

E.G. Nambudiri respondent is a Section Officer in the office of
H Chief Controller of Import and Exports, Ministry of Commerce. By a
U.0.1. v. E.G. NAMBUDIRI [SINGH, J.] 455

memorandum dated 7th May, 1985, the Director communicated
A
adverse remarks awarded to the respondent for the year ending 1984.
These remarks were as under:

"1. That you were not associated with the important
work of the section such as the open house discussions,
monthly analysis of the returns received from regional B
offices, complaints and Port Officers meetings.

2. That the quality of performance and application of
knowledge, delegated authority and conceptual and profes-
sional skills on the jobs is very poor.

3. That you had a casual attitude to the work assigned. c
Your devotion to duty was insufficient. That subordinates
used to complain that they could not work under you, as
you could not give proper guidance.

4. That your job did not involve contact with the public D
indications and your intellectual honesty and innovative
opaity are average.

5. That nothing adverse has come to notice regarding your
integrity.
E
6. That you were given advice/warning at various levels
both orally and in writing but you did not react to these."
~ '
y- The respondent made representation against the adverse remarks but
the same was rejected by the order dated 6.1.1986. The respondent,
thereafter, made a memorial to the President of India against the F
adverse remarks, as a result of which the adverse remarks as contained
in Item Nos. 1 to 4 as quoted above were expunged, whereas the
remaining adverse entries were maintained. The Govt. 's decision was
communicated by a memorandum dated 14.8.1986. But before the
aforesaid decision of the Government partially expunging the adverse
".:;.... remarks could be communicated to the respondent"he filed a petition G
before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of
the Ministry of Commerce dated 6.1.1986 rejecting his representation
made against the adverse entries. The respondent challenged the order
dated 6. 1. 1986 rejecting his representation on the ground that it did
not contain any reasons. Plea of ma/a fide was also raised against the
Joint Director, Ministry of Commerce, who had awarded the adverse H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A ,remarks to· the respondent. The Tribunal by its order dated 27.7.1987
quashed the Government Order as contained in the communication
letter dated 6.1.1986 and also subsequent order dated 14.8.1986 on the
ground that those orders were vitiated in law in the absence of reasons. .1

The Tribunal held that it was a basic principle of natural justice
B of every quasi-judicial process, that order should contain reasons.
Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial as well as
administrative enquiries, an unjust decision in an administrative
enquiry may have more far reaching effect than in a quasi-judicial
enquiry, therefore, it was necessary that in rejecting the representa-
tion against an adverse entry, reasons must be stated and in the
·absence of reasons the order would be arbitrary and liable to be
c quashed. Placing reliance on a number of decisions of High Courts, the
Tribunal held that a bald communication rejecting the representation
made against the adverse entries does not meet the requirement of
law. The Tribunal further held that in the absence of reasons it would
follow that .the competent authority rejected the representation with-
D out applying its mind to the grounds raised in the representation.

Learned counsel for the parties conceded that th~re are no
statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution regulating
the award of entries in the character roll of a Central Government
employee or providing for filing of representation against the adverse
E entries, or its disposal. The entire field in this regard is regulated by
administrative directions issued from time to time. Under these direc-
tions the character roll of Government servants is required to be ,.
maintained wherein the entries are made every year by superior com- -,·
petent authority regarding the work, conduct and character of the
Government servant. These entries are confidential in nature, which
F contain the assessment of the work and conduct of the Government
servant, reflecting his efficiency or defect in his work and conduct.
The confidential reports, contain general assessment of character, con-
duct and qualities of a Govt. servant which. may include comments
about his good work, drive, initiative, devotion to duty and integrity.
These entries also reflect the inefficiency, delay, lack of initiative, care-
G lessness in handling the problems, or any defect in character and
integrity. These .entries contain reference to any penalty which may
have been awarded to a Government servant in departmental proceed-
ings. These entries are important in nature as on the basis of these
entries, a Government servant's suitability to the office is assessed for
the purposes of his confirmation·, promotion and even for retention in
H service. Any adverse remark awarded against a Government servant is
r U.0.1. v. E.G. NAMBUDIRI [SINGH, J.] 457

communicated to him to afford him opportunity of explaining the cor- 'A
rec! position by means of a representation. The competent authority is
required to examine the adverse remarks in consultation, if necessary,
j:.-
with the reporting officer and counter signing authority. If the compe-
tent auth<?rity finds that the remarks are justified and there are no
sufficient grounds for interference, he may reject the representation
and the Government servant is informed accordingly. If, however, the B
competent authority finds that the adverse remarks are incorrect,
unfounded or unjustified, he would expunge the same· and inform the
Government servant. The competent authority may having regard to
~ the facts and circumstances of the case modify, or tone down. the
remarks. The administrative instructions issued by the Government do
not require the competent authority to record reasons either in
accepting or rejecting the representation of a Government servant, c
made against adverse entries.

Entries made in the character roll and confidential record of a
Government servant are confidential and those do not by themselves
affect any right of the Government servant, but those entries assume D
importance and play vital role in the matter relating to confirmation,
""' crossing of efficiency bar, promotion and retention in service. Once an
adverse report is recorded, the principles of natural justice require the
reporting authority to communicate the same to the Government
servant to enable him to improve his work and conduct and also to
explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is E
not an empty formality, its object, partially, 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. The superior authority competent to decide the representa-
tion is required to consider the explanation offered by the Govern-
men! servant before taking a decision in the matter. Any adverse F
report which is not communicated to the Government servant, or if he
is denied the opportunity of !Jl.aking representation to the superior
authority, cannot be considered against him. See: Gurdial Singh Fijji
v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 518. In the circumstances it is
.--- necessary that the authority must consider the explanation offered by
the Government servant and to decide the same in a fair and just G
manner. The question then arises whether in considering and deciding
the representation against adverse report, the authorities are duty
bound to record reasons, O! to communfoate the same to the person
concerned. Ordinarily, Courts an_g '.Jrib.u.!lals, adjudicating rights of
parties, are required to act judicially and to record reasons. Where an
administrative authority is required to act judicially it is also under an H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

obligation to record reasons. But every administrative authority is not
A
under any legal obligation to record reasons for its decision, although,
it is always desirable to record reasons to avoid any suspicion. Where a
statute requires an authority though acting administratively to record .j

reasons, it is mandatory for the authority to pass speaking orders and
in the absence of reasons the order would be rendered illegal. But in
B the absence of any statutory or administrative requirement to record
reasons, the order of the administrative authority is not rendered
illegal for absence of reasons. If any challenge is made to the validity
of an order on the ground of it being arbitrary or ma/a fide it is always
open to the authority concerned to place reasons before the Court
which may have persuaded it to pass the orders. Such reasons must
already exist on records as it is not permissible to the authority to
"
c support the order by reasons not contained in the records. Reasons are
not necessary to be communicated to the Government servant. If the
statutory rules require communication of reasons, the same must be
communicated but in the absence of any such provision absence of
communication of reasons do not affect the validity of the order.
D
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that principles of
natural justice require the superior authority to record reasons in
.,,
.
rejecting the Government servant's representation made against the
adverse remarks as the order of rejection affected the respondent's
right. It is true that the old distinction between judicial act and
E administrative act has withered away and the principles of natural
justice are now applied even to administrative orders which involve
civil consequences, as held by this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss)
Binapani Dei & Ors., [1967] 2 SCR 625 What is a civil consequence has ...
been answered by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Ors. v. The
. ,,,
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 272
F Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench observed:

"But what is a civil consequence, let us ask ourselves, by
passing verbal booby-traps? "Civil consequences" undoub-
tedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal
rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-
~
G pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, -~

everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil
consequence.''

The purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of
justice and it is no more in doubt that the principles of natural justice
H are applicable to administrative orders if such orders affect the right of
U.0.1. v. E.G. NAMBUDIRI !SINGH, J.] 459

a citizen. Arriving at ihe just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial
A
as well as administrative enquiry, an unjust decision in an administra-
tive enquiry may have more far reachmg· effect than decision in a
quasi-judicial enquiry. Now, there is no doubt that the principles of
natural justice are applicable even to administrative enquiries. See:
A.K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1970] 1SCR457.
B
The question is whether principles of natural justice require an
administrative anthority to record reasons. Generally, principles of
natural justice require that opportunity of hearing should be given to
the person against whom an administrative order is passed. The appli-
cation of principles of natural justice, and its sweep depend upon the
nature of the rights involved, having regard to the setting and context
of the statutory provisions. Where a vested right is adversely affected c
by an administrative order, or where civil consequences ensue, princi-
ples of natural justice apply even if the statutory provisions do not
make any express provision for the same, and the person concerned
must be _afforded opportunity of hearing before the order is passed.
But principles of natural justice do not require the administrative D
authority to record reasons for its decision as there is no general rule
that reasons must be given for administrative decision. Order of an
administrative authority which has no statutory or implied duty to
state reasons or the grounds of its decision is not rendered illegal
merely on account of absence of reasons. It has never been a principle
of natural justice that reasons should be given for decisions. See: E
Regina v. Gaming Board for Great Britain exp. Benaim and Khaida,
[1970] 2 QB 417 at 431. Though the principles of natural justice do not
require reasons for decisio'!, there is necessity for giving reasons in
view of the expanding law of judicial review to enable the citizens to
discover the reasoning behind the decision. Right to reasons is an
indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Under our F
Constitution an administrative decision is subject to judicial review if
it affects the right of a citizen, it is therefore desirable that reasons
should be stated.

There are however, many areas of administrative activity where
no reasons are recorded or communicated, if such a decision is chal- G
lenged before the Court for judicial review, the reasnos for the deci-
sion may be placed before the court. The superior authority while con-
sidering the representation of a Government servant against adverse
remarks, is not required by law to act judicially, it is under no legal
obligation to record or communicate reasons for its decision to the
Government servant. The decision, rejecting the representation does H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

not adversely affect any vested right of the Government servant nor
A
does it visit him wit_h any civil consequences. In ll!any cases ha".ing
regard to infinite variations of_~ircumstances, it may not be possible to
_)
disclose reasons for the opinion formed about the work and conduct or
character of the Government servant. In the instant case adverse
remarks as contained in item Nos. 1 to 4 were expunged but those at
B serial numbers 5 and 6 were not expunged and the respondent's rep-
resentation to that extent was rejected. On a careful scrutiny of the
two remarks, it would appear that observation contained in Item No. 5
"that nothing adverse has come to notice regarding your integrity" is
not adverse to the respondent's work and conduct. These remarks are
neutral in nature, and they do not adversely comment upon the
respondent's work, conduct or charac_ter, though they are not com-
c mendatory in nature. As regards the remarks at Serial No. 6, they are -
self-explanatory, which show that inspite of oral and written warnings
the respondent did not improve. If the superior authority was not
satisfied with the explanation of the respondent as contained in his
representation, what reasons could be stated, except that the authority
was not satisfied with the explanation. The superior authority was not
obliged to write detail judgment or order giving details of the warnings
or the material on which he formed opinion.

There is no dispute that there is no rule or administrative order
for recording reasons in rejecting a representation. In the absence of
E any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent
authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a
Government servant against the adverse entries the competent autho-
rity is not under any obligation to record reason. But the competent
authority has no licence to act arbitrarily, he must act in a fair and just
manner. He is required to consider the questions raised by the
Government servant and examine the same, in the light of the com-
ments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer
counter-signing the same. If the representation is rejected after its
consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of r~jection would
not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. In
the absence of any statutory or administrative provision requiring the
G competent authority to record reasons or to communicate reasons, no
exception can be taken to the order rejecting representation merely on
the ground of ·absence of reasons. No order of an administrative
authority communicating its decision is rendered illegal on the ground
of absence of reasons ex facie and it is not open to the court to
interfere with such orders merely on the ground of absence of any
H reasons. However, it does not mean that the administrative authority
U.0.1. v. E.G. NAMBUDIRI (SINGH, J.] 461

is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the A
same. In goverrunental functioning before any order is issued the
matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and
opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained
in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. If
the order as communicated to the Government servant rejecting the B
representation does not contain any reasons, the order cannot be held
to be bad in law. If such an order is challenged in a court of law it is
always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the
Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is
always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence ali-
unde before the court to justify its action.
c
The President was under no legal obligation to record reasons in
rejecting the respondent's representation against the adverse remarks.
Consequently, the order of the-President was not vitiated in law. The
Cenrtral Administrative Tribunal committed error in quashin& the
order of the President as well as the order of the Ministry of Com-
D
merce dated 6.1.1986. Assuming that there was some defect in the
order rejecting the respondent's representation, the Tribunal was not
justified in holding that the adverse entries awarded to the respondent
should be treated as having been expunged.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the
Tribunal dated 27. 7.1987. There will be no order as to costs. E

T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.

...
'