1. Denial of promotion to higher rank based on adverse remarks following a Court of Enquiry into mishandling of cases. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE B.P. JEEVANREDDYANDK.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
MAJOR GENERAL I.P.S. DEWAN
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal No. 3273 of 1995
Decided on 7-3-1995
Advocates appeared:
G. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate (D.N. Goburdhan, Ms Pinky Anand and Ms Geeta Luthra, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant; Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General and N.N. Goswamy, Senior Advocate (Y.P. Mahajan and Ms Anil Katiyar, Advocates, with them) for the Respondents.
Adverse remarks by a superior officer based on a Court of Enquiry do not require a prior show-cause notice unless rules mandate it. Selection Boards are not required to record reasons for non-selection, and courts will not interfere in merit-based selections absent mala fides or illegality.
Headnote:
Employment and Service Matters - Allegation of Arbitrary - Prays for Expunction - Denial of Promotion to Rank of Lt - Administrative Orders Affecting the Rights of Citizens - Appeal is preferred against order - Writ petition filed by appellant at stage of admission - Appellant is aggrieved with, what he says, denial of promotion to rank of Lt. General - He says that though he was the senior most of several candidates considered for promotion and his record of service was best of all, he was not promoted because of and only on account of adverse remarks made by Chief of the Army Staff against him appellant complains that while making said adverse remarks the procedure prescribed by relevant rules was not followed nor was the principle of natural justice observed. Accordingly, he prays for expunction of said remarks and promotion to the rank of Lt. General – Held, administrative orders affecting rights of citizens should contain reasons therefore - We are afraid, said principle cannot be extended to matters of selection. Unless rules so require, Selection Committee/Selection Board is not obliged to record reasons why they are not selecting a particular person and/or why they are selecting a particular person, as the case may be - If said decision is sought to be relied upon with respect to adverse remarks made against appellant, the attack should fail for the reason that the memo containing adverse remarks in this case does set out the particulars in support of same. It is equally relevant to note that no allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness has been levelled against the Chief of the Army Staff who made said remarks – Appeal dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether adverse remarks constituted severe displeasure requiring prior notice and whether the statutory complaint should have been decided before promotion consideration. (Para 8 )
3. Adverse remarks based on enquiry reports do not require formal charges; selection boards evaluate overall merit and are not required to record reasons. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 18 )
4. Adverse remarks do not necessitate prior hearings unless rules mandate it; merit-based selection decisions are not vitiated by considering rejected statutory complaints. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 16 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 19 )
6. Do adverse remarks require a formal enquiry or prior opportunity to be heard?
No, adverse remarks can be made by a superior officer based on a performance assessment or enquiry report without a formal charge or prior opportunity, unless specific rules require it. The remedy is to make a representation to the appropriate authority. (Para 10 )
7. When does the procedure for severe displeasure apply to adverse remarks?
The procedure for severe displeasure applies only if the remarks are interpreted as such; strong language alone does not transform adverse remarks into an expression of severe displeasure. (Para 11 )
8. Must a Selection Board record reasons for not selecting a candidate?
No, unless the applicable rules specifically require it, a Selection Committee or Board is not obliged to record reasons for selecting or not selecting a particular person. (Para 18 )
9. Does the failure to dispose of a statutory complaint before promotion consideration invalidate the selection process?
Not if the complaint is eventually rejected. Such an objection is technical and does not vitiate the selection unless the complaint was upheld or mala fides are proven. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 )
JUDGMENT
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted.
2. The appeal is preferred against an order of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant at the stage of admission. The appellant, Major General I.P.S. Dewan, is aggrieved with, what he says, denial of promotion to the rank of Lt. General. He says that though he was the seniormost of the several candidates considered for promotion and his record of service was the best of all, he was not promoted because of and only on account of the adverse remarks made by General S.F. Rodrigues, Chief of the Army Staff against him on 11-5-1993. The appellant complains that while making the said adverse remarks the procedure prescribed by the relevant rules was not followed nor was the principle of natural justice observed. Accordingly, he prays for expunction of the said remarks and promotion to the rank of Lt. General.
3. The adverse remarks complained of read as follows: "CONFIDENTIAL Adverse remarks of the COAS to be endorsed on dossier in the case of IC-12599LMaj Gen I.P.S. Dewan, MG ASC, HQ Southern Command 1. Consequent to a C of I ordered by this Headquarters to investigate into the mishandling of CBI cases of RC 19(A)89-JPR and PE 3(A)/9A-JPR by Headquarters Southern Command in 1992, it has emerged that Maj Gen I.P.S. Dewan (Ex-MG 1C Admn) now MG ASC Headquarters Southern Command failed to appreciate the nuances of both cases, and to apply his professional acumen and experience to their examination. He also failed to examine the cases in detail, or to carry out a detailed analysis and merely endorsed his views, based on the perfunctory advice of the MG ASC. He had merely applied his mind to defend ASC contracting procedures and did not consider the major issues involved. He is to be blamed for mishandling and closing the cases and for acting in a manner which is not expected of his rank and the higher responsibility entrusted to him as MG 1C Admn Headquarters Southern Command.
2. On analysis of the case, I find the conduct of Maj Gen I.P.S. Dewan, then MG 1C Admn, now MG ASC Headquarters Southern Command to be Advocates who appeared in this case :
G. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate (D.N. Goburdhan, Ms Pinky Anand and Ms Geeta Luthra, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant; Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General and N.N. Goswamy, Senior Advocate (Y.P. Mahajan and Ms Anil Katiyar, Advocates, with them) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted.
2. The appeal is preferred against an order of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant at the stage of admission. The appellant, Major General I.P.S. Dewan, is aggrieved with, what he says, denial of promotion to the rank of Lt. General. He says that though he was the seniormost of the several candidates considered for promotion and his record of service was the best of all, he was not promoted because of and only on account of the adverse remarks made by General S.F. Rodrigues, Chief of the Army Staff against him on 11-5-1993. The appellant complains that while making the said adverse remarks the procedure prescribed by the relevant rules was not followed nor was the principle of natural justice observed. Accordingly, he prays for expunction of the said remarks and promotion to the rank of Lt. General.
3. The adverse remarks complained of read as follows: "CONFIDENTIAL Adverse remarks of the COAS to be endorsed on dossier in the case of lC-12599LMaj Gen I.P.S. Dewan, MG ASC, HQ Southern Command 1. Consequent to a C of I ordered by this Headquarters to investigate into the mishandling of CBI cases of RC 19(A)89-JPR and PE 3(A)/9A-JPR by Headquarters Southern Command in 1992, it has emerged that Maj Gen I.P.S. Dewan (Ex-MG 1C Admn) now MG ASC Headquarters Southern Command failed to appreciate the nuances of both cases, and to apply his professional acumen and experience to their examination. He also failed to examine the cases in detail
