Can Employee Prove Adverse Remarks Not Communicated? Allahabad High Court Says Burden On Department

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an employee cannot be required to prove that adverse remarks in confidential reports were never communicated to him; the burden lies on the department to demonstrate that communication was indeed made. The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh also restored a writ petition and granted promotion to an 85-year-old retired police officer with back benefits from 1980.

A 25-Year Legal Battle for Promotion

Ram Autar Singh Yadav, a retired Station Officer, had been denied promotion since 1980, alleging that his juniors were promoted. He approached the High Court and obtained a direction to the Director General of Police to consider his claim. The DGP rejected it on 6 April 2010, citing adverse remarks in his confidential reports and an earlier censure. The State Public Services Tribunal dismissed his claim petition on 30 November 2012, and his review was dismissed on 10 June 2013. The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's judgment was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16 February 2015, and the restoration application was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 11 December 2025. The petitioner, now 85 years old, appeared in person and regularly attended court, traveling from his village in Etawah.

The Court's Reasoning on Adverse Remarks

The court found that the Tribunal erred in requiring the petitioner to prove that the adverse entries were not communicated. "The Tribunal appears to have lost sight that a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot. It was up to the department to demonstrate communication. Petitioner saying he had not been communicated the adverse entries of many years, could not be called upon to prove the negative ." The court noted that the department had not resisted the case before the Tribunal and had failed to produce any evidence of communication.

Condonation of Delay and Restoration

The court applied the principles from the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji , which emphasizes a liberal approach to condonation of delay to do substantial justice . The court observed that the petitioner's conduct was diligent and that his writ petition had never been heard on merit. "Restoration applications, however, stand on different footing," the court noted, allowing the restoration and recalling the dismissal orders.

Final Decision: Promotion Granted with Back Benefits

The court quashed the Tribunal's judgment and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Civil Police with effect from 16 March 1980 . It clarified that promotional salary and benefits are to be computed from that date till the date of the petitioner's retirement, and corresponding retiral benefits must also be given. The court observed that the State had no answer to the DGP's statement that the petitioner was considered for promotion, yet no record of his assessment was produced. "We are convinced that petitioner was treated unfairly," the court concluded, ordering compliance within four weeks of communication of the order.