Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
U.P. JAL NIGAM & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRABHAT CHANDRA JAIN & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1661 1996 SCC (2) 363
JT 1996 (1) 641 1996 SCALE (1)624
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
What we say in this order shall not only cover the case
of the first respondent but shall also regulate the system
of recording annual confidential reports prevalent in the
U.P. Jal Nigam - the first petitioner herein.
The first respondent was down graded at a certain point
of time to which the Service Tribunal gave a correction.
Before the High Court, the petitioners’ plea was that down
grading entries in confidential reports cannot be termed as
adverse entries so as to obligate the Nigam to communicate
the same to the employee and attract a representation. This
argument was turned down by the High Court, as in its view
confidential reports, were assets of the employee, since
they weigh to his advantage at the promotional and
extensional stages of service. The High Court to justify its
view has given an illustration that if an employee
legitimately had earned an ’outstanding’ report in a
particular year which, in a succeeding one, and without his
knowledge, is reduced to the level of ’satisfactory’ without
any communication to him, it would certainly be adverse and
affect him at one or the other stage of his career.
We need to explain these observations of the High
Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry is
required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but
not down grading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of
the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect
any adverseness that is not required to be communicated. As
we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court
may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable,
but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like
falling from ’very good’ to ’good’ that may not ordinarily
be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All
what is required by the Authority recording confidentials in
the situation is to record reasons for such down grading on
the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation
warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of
writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated.
Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part
may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one time
achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the
same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, be not
reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be
communicated as such. It may be emphasized that even a
positive confidential entry in a given case can previously
be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be
qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case
we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No
reason for the change is mentioned. The down grading is
reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having
explained in this manner the case of the first respondent
and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam, we do
not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result
arrived at by the High Court.
The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.