Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Expunging adverse remarks - Judicial practice and authority Courts generally recognize the need to expunge adverse remarks from official records when they are unfounded, unjustified, or not properly communicated to the employee. The courts have held that if an adverse remark lacks a factual foundation, is not necessary for the case, or is made without proper communication, it can be expunged. For instance, the court noted, the adverse remark... should refrain from making such remark when it adversely affects a person without proper basis ["Balaram Chari Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow - Allahabad"]. Additionally, courts have acknowledged that the authority to expunge such remarks may lie with the competent authority, such as the State Government or departmental heads, especially when the remarks are erroneous or not communicated to the employee ["BRAHMANANDA PATIRI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"], ["Brahmanand Patiri VS State of Assam - Gauhati"].Analysis and Conclusion: The main insight is that adverse remarks should be expunged if they are unjustified, improperly communicated, or made without legal authority. The courts emphasize the importance of fair communication and the authority of competent bodies to remove such remarks when warranted ["Balaram Chari Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow - Allahabad"], ["BRAHMANANDA PATIRI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"].
Communication and verification of adverse remarks Proper communication of adverse remarks is critical. Remarks not communicated to the employee or made without proper notice are subject to being challenged and expunged. Several cases state, the remark was never made known to the petitioner or the adverse remark was not communicated, which invalidates the remark ["Brahmanand Patiri VS State of Assam - Gauhati"], ["Hemant Nagrale vs M/o Home Affairs - Central Administrative Tribunal"]. The courts also recognize that remarks made after a significant delay or without proper verification can be grounds for expungement, emphasizing that inordinate delay in recording the remarks is a ground to expunge ["Prabir Chandra Kakati S/o Late Siba Chandra Kakati VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"].Analysis and Conclusion: Proper communication and timely recording are essential for the validity of adverse remarks. When these procedural safeguards are not followed, remarks can be deemed invalid and subject to expungement ["Brahmanand Patiri VS State of Assam - Gauhati"], ["Hemant Nagrale vs M/o Home Affairs - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Authority to expunge adverse remarks The authority to expunge adverse remarks generally resides with departmental heads, state authorities, or designated officials. Courts have upheld that when such authorities rectify erroneous entries or upgrade gradings, they effectively have the competence to expunge adverse remarks ["BRAHMANANDA PATIRI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"], ["Brahmanand Patiri VS State of Assam - Gauhati"]. Conversely, courts have also rejected attempts by employees to have remarks expunged when the remarks are part of official records, especially if not challenged within statutory timelines or if the remarks are deemed administrative rather than adverse ["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"].Analysis and Conclusion: The power to expunge lies primarily with competent authorities, and courts support such actions when they are legally justified, timely, and procedural safeguards are observed ["BRAHMANANDA PATIRI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"], ["Brahmanand Patiri VS State of Assam - Gauhati"].
Nature and classification of remarks Not all remarks are considered adverse. Some remarks, such as entries in service registers or administrative notes, are deemed consequential rather than adverse. For example, entry made in the Service Register is only consequential and not an adverse remark ["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"]. The classification depends on the language used and the context; stereotyped or vague phrases may not constitute adverse remarks unless explicitly communicated as such ["Prabir Chandra Kakati S/o Late Siba Chandra Kakati VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"].Analysis and Conclusion: The distinction between administrative entries and adverse remarks is crucial. Remarks must be explicitly adverse and communicated as such to have legal significance, and not all negative entries automatically qualify as adverse remarks ["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"], ["Prabir Chandra Kakati S/o Late Siba Chandra Kakati VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"].
Impact of adverse remarks on promotion and service records Adverse remarks can affect promotions and service benefits if they are properly communicated and recorded. However, if remarks are uncommunicated, invalid, or later expunged, they cannot be used to deny promotions or benefits. Several cases highlight that the adverse remark for the period from 03.08.2012 to 29.04.2013 is liable to be quashed when not properly communicated ["Iswar Chandra Pradhan VS State of Odisha represented through the Secretary, Law Department - Orissa"]. Courts have also emphasized that remarks not on record at the time of promotion decisions should not influence those decisions ["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"].Analysis and Conclusion: Properly recorded and communicated adverse remarks are essential for their impact on promotions. When such remarks are invalidated or expunged, they lose their effect on service benefits ["Iswar Chandra Pradhan VS State of Odisha represented through the Secretary, Law Department - Orissa"], ["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"].
Procedural safeguards and time limits Timely communication and adherence to statutory timelines are vital. Delays or exceeding prescribed periods for challenging or communicating remarks weaken their validity. For example, the representation... is beyond the statutory period of limitation ["Hemant Nagrale vs M/o Home Affairs - Central Administrative Tribunal"].Analysis and Conclusion: Strict procedural adherence and timely action are necessary for adverse remarks to have legal effect; otherwise, they can be invalidated ["Hemant Nagrale vs M/o Home Affairs - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
References:["Balaram Chari Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow - Allahabad"]["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"]["Vishal Kumar Pandey vs The Director General of BSF - Madras"]["Abhishek Tripathi Dead Substituted By Ram Mani Tripathi vs Union Of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"]["Ganeshwary Dushyantkumar Shah VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]["Brahmanand Patiri VS State of Assam - Gauhati"]["BRAHMANANDA PATIRI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"]["Prabir Chandra Kakati S/o Late Siba Chandra Kakati VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"]["Iswar Chandra Pradhan VS State of Odisha represented through the Secretary, Law Department - Orissa"]["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"]["Hemant Nagrale vs M/o Home Affairs - Central Administrative Tribunal"]["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"]-351_2021)["A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - Madras"]
Adverse remarks in official records can derail careers, blocking promotions and tarnishing reputations. Whether in court judgments or administrative files like Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), these notations demand careful handling. If you're facing the question expunge of adverse remark, understanding the legal pathways is crucial. This guide explores the implications, procedures, and precedents, drawing from key judicial decisions. Note: This is general information; consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your situation.
Adverse remarks typically note misconduct, inefficiency, or unbecoming conduct in service books, character rolls, or judicial orders. They pose significant barriers to career progression, such as Assured Career Progression (ACP) schemes or promotions. RAJIV JAYARAJ VS HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 862DEVENDRA KUMAR NAILWA VS STATE OF U. P - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 241
Unexpunged remarks lead to promotion denials, as seen in cases where ACP-II was rejected. RAJIV JAYARAJ VS HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 862DEVENDRA KUMAR NAILWA VS STATE OF U. P - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 241 Improper expungement can even be reversed, resurrecting the remark. Hari Ram VS DGP, Haryana - 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 1798
Additional precedents highlight similar issues. For instance, an entry in a service register was deemed non-adverse if merely consequential, not reflecting conduct. A.R.SADHASIVAM vs THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 24535 In another, failure to communicate adverse ACR entries or decide on objections invalidated rejection of scale upgradation. Shiva Mohan Jha, son of Late Nathuni Jha VS Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1148
Expungement from ACRs, confidential rolls, or service books follows a strict multi-tiered process. No automatic removal occurs without explicit orders.
Supporting cases reinforce due process. Courts stress communicating adverse entries, allowing objections, and final decisions before impacts like promotion denial. In one ruling, the need for communication of adverse entries, the opportunity for objections, and the requirement for a final decision before considering adverse... was key, quashing a rejection. Shiva Mohan Jha, son of Late Nathuni Jha VS Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1148 Similarly, in APAR disputes, competent authorities must apply mind to facts and memos, or face remand. Janglun Singson VS Union Of India And Ors, Rep By Secy, Govt Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 710
For judicial orders, higher courts exercise discretion under provisions like Section 397(2), Cr.P.C., prioritizing restraint.
Precedents align: Remarks by a Single Judge, if observations not findings, merit expungement when unsupported. The court clarified that remarks made by a learned Single Judge are observations and not definitive findings, justifying their expungement when unsupported by evidence. Darash Mathur, S/o. Late H. S. Mathur VS Bina Devi, W/o. Late Atul Nath - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 25 In promotions, expunging integrity: doubtful retroactively deems it nonexistent. SHAH SYED AHADUR RAHMAN VS HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT - 2015 Supreme(Gau) 1386
Writs or revisions face high bars:- Not maintainable against sound orders reversing illegal expungements. Hari Ram VS DGP, Haryana - 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 1798- No interference in administrative discretion unless arbitrary. RAJIV JAYARAJ VS HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 862- Relief denied without meeting preconditions. Hari Ram VS DGP, Haryana - 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 1798RAJIV JAYARAJ VS HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 862
In service matters, vague remarks like kept under watch without reasons aren't adverse, quashing promotion denials. Courts mandate reasons and opportunities. Suresh Chander Parashar VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1299
Cases like compassionate appointments show uncalled-for remarks expunged absent evidence. Darash Mathur, S/o. Late H. S. Mathur VS Bina Devi, W/o. Late Atul Nath - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 25 In IDA scale disputes, pending objections prevent using remarks against upgrades. Shiva Mohan Jha, son of Late Nathuni Jha VS Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1148
Expunging adverse remarks demands prompt, precise action: representations, compliance, and explicit orders. Administrative processes rely on High Court committees; judicial ones on restraint and facts. Delays or shortcuts fail, perpetuating career harm. Act swiftly within hierarchies for best chances.
Key Takeaways:- Always represent promptly; no second chances post-lapse. Hari Ram VS DGP, Haryana - 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 1798- Ensure communication and objection opportunities precede impacts. Shiva Mohan Jha, son of Late Nathuni Jha VS Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1148- Seek expungement only with strong grounds; courts uphold discretion.- For judicial remarks, highlight lack of evidence or restraint breaches. Subodh Kumar Bhatt VS State of U. P. - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 2598
This overview synthesizes precedents like RAJIV JAYARAJ VS HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY) - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 862, Hari Ram VS DGP, Haryana - 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 1798, DEVENDRA KUMAR NAILWA VS STATE OF U. P - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 241, Subodh Kumar Bhatt VS State of U. P. - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 2598, and others. Professional legal counsel is essential for your case.
#ExpungeAdverseRemarks #LegalExpungement #ACRExpungement
Being aggrieved, the present application is filed challenging the aforesaid part of the adverse remark in the Judgment and Order dated 27- 10-2015. ... But where there is no foundation fon the remark in question nor is it necessary for a court to make the remark for a just decision of the case and such remark adversely affects the person against whom it is made, the courts of justice should refrain from making such remark. ... The adverse remark read....
The prayer is not only to expunge the adverse entry but to grant super time scale to the petitioner. ... The prayer is made to expunge the adverse remarks and, accordingly, be given benefit of has been cross checked from earlier places of posting at Sangariya, any adverse remark throughout his service and even charge-sheet p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin
refusing to expunge the adverse remark, is not inclined to of 'reprimand', being an adverse remark from his ACR for the vide order dated 25.6.2015, which was communicated to him on taking note of the reason given by the Initiating Officer for although the petitioner suffered the adverse remark of p style="position
Finally, the applicant represented on 25.02.2010 to expunge adverse remarks in the ACR for 1990-91 and the respondents expunged the adverse remarks vide memorandum dated 26.04.2011. ... In the backdrop of above, it is felt that the relevant adverse remark may be expunged so that his case of non-crossing EB pending for nearly 20 years could be disposed of. ... Sd/- DDG (I/C) In view of the circumstances given above I expunge the adverse remarks. ... Since 2002-03 onw....
While communicating the adverse remark, it is not mandatory to mention the name of the officer who has made such adverse remark. ... Director of Technical Education confirming the adverse remarks against the Petitioner for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015; (A3) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to expunge the adverse remarks made against the Petitioner for three successive ... Note made in order to make the remark#HL_EN....
If that is so, the State authority would have the competency and authority to expunge the adverse remark in the ACR which has not been communicated to the petitioner. 36) This Court has gone through the order dated 31.03.2017 issued by the State Govt. ... By the aforesaid order certain erroneous entries made in the ACRs of the petitioner were rectified by the authority and certain gradings were also upgraded, which would certainly indicate that the State authority can also expunge this adverse #HL_START....
If that is so, the State authority would have the competency and authority to expunge the adverse remark in the ACR which has not been communicated to the petitioner. 36. ... By the aforesaid order certain erroneous entries made in the ACRs of the petitioner were rectified by the authority and certain gradings were also upgraded, which would certainly indicate that the State authority can also expunge this adverse remark in the ACR of the petitioner. ... which has full control over the....
Entry made in the Service Register is only consequential and entry is not adverse remark. It does not reflect the conduct of the petitioner or any adverse remark made in Annual Confidential Report. It is only an administrative action after recording what had happened in his service. ... the adverse entry made in the service register of the petitioner. ... A specific remark was made in the transfer order as well as in the consequential posting order. The petitioner has not challenged th....
a request to expunge the said remark. ... As per the policy, the eligibility criteria for IDA scale up-gradation as laid down in the OM required that the applicant should have completed 04 (four) years of service in the current IDA scale and the ACRS for the previous 05 (five) years should not have any adverse remark. ... Further, the direction to expunge the adverse entry as communicated vide letter dated 27.03.2002 to the extent upheld in the order dated 22.02.2005 and to treat the A....
Inordinate delay in recording the remarks is a ground to expunge the adverse remarks. Therefore, Mr. ... grievance against the Petitioner for which the Respondent No. 7 has entered adverse remark against the Petitioner in the ACR for the year 2017-2018. ... Therefore, this fact, according to the petitioner, has irked Respondent No. 7 and led him to act against the petitioner by entering an adverse remark into ACR. ... The entry of "Good" in ACR of the petitioner for the year 2017-18 it....
6. Situated thus, the appellant No.1 i.e. Darash Mathur, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, Assam (respondent No.2 in WP(C) No. 5079/2015) and appellant No.2 i.e. Shri Bidyut Borthakur, the then Deputy Conservator of Forest, filed an application, being I.A. (C) No. 3163/2018, in WP(C) No. 5079/2015 for expunging the aforesaid remark made against the respondent No.2 in the judgment & order dated 26.09.2016. However, the aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.06.2024. Accordingly, the present appeal has been preferred against th....
Accordingly, a representation was made to expunge the adverse remark from the APAR of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the adverse remark in the APAR for the period ending on 31.03.2014 was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.09.2014, he had submitted a representation through proper channel wherein it was highlighted that the DG, BSF had been given wrong information by Shri Priyank, Assistant Commandant and he had also explained the reason for calling off the said operation and had narrated that the BSF infor....
In Gopal Singh Rathore (supra), there was a remark in the ACR of the petitioner that he had to be kept under watch but there was nothing further to show as to for what reason he was required to be kept under watch. As there was no reason assigned, the remark that the petitioner be kept under watch, has been held to be not adverse and the denial of promotion to the petitioner was found to be unjustified and arbitrary. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered the material on the basis of which the adverse remark was given by the Reporting Officer and had found tha....
The petitioner submitted his representation (Annexure-2) to expunge the adverse remark made in his CCR on the ground stated therein. It is alleged inter alia that the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter called as “the DPC”) did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground of adverse entry in his CCR. There was no preliminary enquiry as to the allegations made and no prima facie case was made out justifying denial of promotion to the petitioner. The said period relates to his incumbency in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujanga.
In the present case, it would mean that the adverse remark "integrity: doubtful" which has been stated to be the most para-amount consideration while considering promotion in the affidavit of the Registrar General, was nonexistent. The effect of expunction of adverse remark, though latter in point of time, would be that such remark never existed. Therefore, on that basis, the High Court could not have formed an opinion that petitioner was not fit for promotion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
