Nagaraja and K.K. Tyagi, Advocates.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls being to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence, before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting/officers writing confidentials should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record.

ORDER

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, made on 2.12.1993 in Writ Petition No. 9458 (SS)/93.

3. The adverse remarks for the years 1987-88 and 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 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 1878 appeal by special leave.

4. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa1, this Court underlined the need to write confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner either commenting/downgrading the conduct, character, efficiency or integrity of the officer 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 behalf it was held that "when he was a responsible teacher and he had cordial relations with the student community, and was taking pains to impart lessons to the students, would it be believable that he avoids to take classes and drops down "if not watched"? When anterior to or subsequent to 1987-88 he was a man of ability and of integrity, the same whether would become below average only for the academic year 1987-88 without discernible reasons, it would speak volumes on the objectivity of assessment by the reporting officer i.e. the Principal. This conduct is much to be desired. This case would establish as a stark reality that writing confidential reports bears onerous responsibility on the reporting officer to eschew his subjectivity and personal prejudices or proclivity or predilections and to make objective assessment. It is needless to emphasise that the career prospects of a subordinate officer/employee largely depends upon the work and character assessment by the reporting officer. The latter should adopt fair, objective, dispassionate and constructive commends/comments in estimating or assessing the character, ability, integrity and responsibility displayed by the officer/employee concerned during the relevant period for the above objectives if not strictly adhered to in making an honest assessment, the prospect and career of the subordinate officer being put to great jeopardy. The reporting officer is bound to lose his credibility in the eyes of his subordinates and fail to command respect and work from them. The constitutional and statutory safeguards given to the government employees largely became responsible to display callousness and disregard of the discharge of their duties and make it impossible to the superior or controlling officers to extract legitimate work from them. The writing of the confidentials is contributing to make the subordinates work at least to some extent. Therefore, writing the confidential reports objectively and constructively and communication thereof at the earliest would pave way for amends by erring subordinate officer or to improve the efficiency in service. At the same time, the subordinate-employee/officer should dedicate to do hard work and duty; assiduity in the discharge of the duty, honesty with integrity in performance thereof which alone would earn his usefulness in retention of his service. Both would contribute to improve excellence in service." In that case, on account of the vague remarks made for the year 1987-88, the appellant therein was compulsorily retired from service. This Court, afte