IMPORTANT POINT
The performance appraisal through Confidential Rolls should be used as a tool for human resource development and is not to be used as a fault finding process but a development one.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970—Rule 9—Adverse Remarks against an IPS Officer—Expunction of—Appellant was selected to Indian Police Service in year 1976 and allocated to Karnataka State—In April 1997, appellant was promoted to rank of Inspector General of Police—From 1-4-1996 to 30-6-1996, appellant discharged his duties as Director (Security & Vigilence) in the rank of Deputy Inspector of Police—Appellant was deputed to Olympic Games held at Atlanta, USA—On 16-10-1996, appellant was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID and he relinquished the said post on 17-4-1997 on his promotion to the cadre of Inspector General of Police—By letter dated 9-12-1997, Chief Secretary informed appellant that in his Annual Confidential Report for the period from 16-10-1996 till 15-3-1997, overall performance had been graded as ‘Average’ and certain adverse remarks had been recorded—Except for the impugned remarks made by the reporting officer, appellant has been consistently graded as ‘outstanding’, ‘very good’ and ‘excellent’ and has also been entrusted with various responsibilities —In his representation he has used intemperate language, mainly against respondent 2 on an erroneous assumption that adverse remarks had been made by him—Whether High Court was justified in dismissing appellant’s writ petition only on basis of language used by him in his representation—(No).
       Held : In order to satisfy ourselves we had called for the entire service record of the appellant and upon perusal of the same, we find that the remarks of the reporting officer for the period in question were contrary to his consistent performance. The observation of the respondent No.2 that the appellant was an arrogant officer is followed by his remark that his knowledge and work is good. Such an observation, in our judgment, cannot be the basis of an overall rating of average.(Para 32)
       The Tribunal also appears to have been prejudiced by the intemperate language used by the appellant against the second respondent. The Tribunal while holding that such language was totally unacceptable also imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- on the appellant to be paid to the second respondent. It is not in dispute that the said cost has been paid by the appellant to the second respondent. However, for the same reasons as those indicated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal also committed an error in overlooking the otherwise consistently good track record of the appellant.(Para 33)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.9.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 33105 of 2000 filed by the appellant, S.T. Ramesh, IPS who is now functioning as Inspector General of Police, dismissing the writ petition and awarding cost to the second respondent.

3. The appellant herein filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore for quashing of the communication of adverse remarks under various headings as incorporated in the letter from the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, dated 9.12.1997. The Tribunal, by its order, dismissed the Original application with costs of Rs.3000/- payable to the second respondent, namely, Sri C. Dinakar, IPS.

4. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court which was also dismissed by the High Court. The appellant questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal and of the High Court in this appeal.

5. Before we proceed further, we shall reproduce the communication of adverse remarks under various heads as incorporated in the letter dated 9.12.1997 from the Chief Secretary which read as follows:

CHIEF SECRETARY

VIDHAN SOUDHABANGALORE-560001

D.O.No.CS 26 IPS CR 9Dated: 9.12.1997

Dear Shri Ramesh

In your Annual Confidential Report for the period from 16.10.1996 to 15.03.1997 your overall performance has been graded as ‘Average’ and the following adverse remarks have also been recorded:

QUALITY OF OUTPUT:

He did not use his optimum capacity and gave an impression as though his stint in COD was a sojourn. This perhaps, became a constraint for the COD. There was no willingness ‘to add on’ more responsibility and it was an attitude of thus far and no further.

KNOWLEDGE AND SPHERE OF WORK:

He is knowledgeable in the profession and its related application but, however, his ‘paradigm’ prevented him from performing better.

LEADERSHIP QUALITIES:

He could not appreciate the environment and the work culture as defined by the Competent Authority in the COD and this block flow of new ideas or new methods of work. The ‘Leader’ in him went into hibernation.

MANAGEMENT QUALITIES:

This column needs to be read with the immediately preceding column. All the management qualities, which very much exist in him, became dormant to the dangerous extent of his not visiting a scene of occurrence in an important case of rape and murder of a young girl student in Chitradurga.

INITIATIVE AND PLANNING ABILITIES:

On the only occasion when a group of agitators, after due intimation through handbills, came and squatted outside the COD premises, he, for reasons best known to himself, went out of the Office around that time and in the process, his senior had to defuse the situation.

DECISION MAKING ABILITY:

His decision making was governed by his ‘paradigm’.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS:

He has command over English and in his few files wherein he was preferred to be elaborate, he has expressed himself clearly. However, his expression in Kannada needs improvement. His presentation of arguments is also good but on a certain occasion; he created an unpleasant scene with the DGP which was totally avoidable.

APPRAISING ABILITY:

His evaluation of some of his subordinates was clouded by some of ‘His past experiences’ with them elsewhere.

INTER-PERSONAL RELATIONS AND TEAMWORK:

His professional relationship with one of his Senior Officers was marked by cold hostility. It was lukewarm with others.

GENERAL BEARING PERSONALITY:

Anything but smiling.

SOCIABILITY:

Prefers to be aloof.

DEDICATION TO DUTY:

Depends on his convenience.

ATTENTION TO DETAILS:

Yes; but takes his own time; response time is not fast.

ABILITY TO TAKE A PRINCIPLED STAND:

It is clouded by his ‘Paradigm’.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT:

He has the capacity to deliver goods but cannot adjust to the organization as a whole if he can’t vibe with his seniors.

An arrogant Officer. His knowledge of work is good, but he c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 224

IMPORTANT POINT The performance appraisal through Confidential Rolls should be used as a tool for human resource development and is not to be used as a fault finding process but a development one.

IMPORTANT POINT
The performance appraisal through Confidential Rolls should be used as a tool for human resource development and is not to be used as a fault finding process but a development one.