http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  868 of 2007

PETITIONER: S.T. Ramesh

RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising Out of SLP (C) NO. 23839 OF  2005)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Leave granted. 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. 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. 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. 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 SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560001

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

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.

DECISIONMAKING 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:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

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 cannot be objective and impartial in discharging his  duties.                 Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter.

Yours Sincerely

Sd/- illegible (B.K.Bhattacharya)"

While opposing the original application filed by the  Appellant, Respondents filed their written statement.   While denying the contentions made by the Appellant as  factually incorrect, the respondents have also submitted  that they have taken appropriate action in dealing with  the representation submitted by the Appellant as per the  provisions of the Rules.  It is also stated that the adverse  remarks submitted by both the Appropriate Authority  and the Reviewing Authority without disclosing the  identity of the persons who wrote the adverse remarks in  accordance with the clarification issued by the  Government of India under Rule 8 of the Rules and the  comments of the Appropriate Authority and the  Reviewing Authority were obtained on the request of the  Appellant for expunction of the adverse remarks and that  since both the Authorities have justified the adverse  remarks recorded by them, the first Respondent do not  find any reason to expunge the adverse remarks.  The case of the appellant in brief is as follows: The appellant was selected to the Indian Police  Service in the year 1976 and allocated to Karnataka State  by the Central Government.  In the month of April, 1997,  the appellant was promoted to the rank of Inspector  General of Police.  From 1.4.1996 to 30.6.1996, the  appellant discharged his duties as Director (Security &  Vigilance), KSRTC, in the rank of Deputy Inspector of  Police.  In the month of July, the appellant was deputed  to Olympic Games held at Atlanta, United States of  America.  He was on compulsory waiting for some time.   On 16.10.1996, the 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, the Chief Secretary  informed the appellant that in his Annual Confidential  Report for the period from 16.10.1996 till 15.3.1997, the  overall performance had been graded as "Average" and  certain adverse remarks had been recorded.  On receipt  of the letter dated 9.12.1997, the appellant submitted his  representation as provided by Rule 9 of the All India  Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (for short, "the  Rules").  The appellant received an order dated 19.6.1999  by which the appellant’s representation for expunging the  adverse remarks was rejected.  Aggrieved by the said  order, the appellant instituted O.A.No. 981 of 1999 before  the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative  Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") seeking  expunction of adverse remarks. The main grounds urged by the appellant in  support of the relief sought by him are that all those

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

remarks are the result of personal bias against him as  well as the incompetence, lack of objectivity and  frustration on the part of the second respondent (C.  Dinakar) who at the relevant point of time was working  as Director General of Police, COD.  In addition to the  above grounds, the appellant also attacked the impugned  order on several other grounds stating that the  mandatory requirements of Rules 5 & 6 of the Rules have  been violated and that the second respondent has  recorded against the appellant the adverse remarks in a  mala fide exercise of the statutory power under Rule 6 of  the Rules and that the said adverse remarks were made  in violation of the aforesaid provisions which are  mandatory in character, are illegal, void and liable to be  quashed and that the order which was made without  application of mind is liable to be quashed and that the  impugned order dated 19.6.1999 is otherwise  unreasonable, unjust and opposed to law and facts. The original application was opposed by the State of  Karnataka and other respondents and before the  Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the second  respondent that adverse remarks against the appellant  herein were written for the relevant period when he  worked as the Deputy Inspector General of Police, COD  and the Reporting authority for the appellant was one Sri  Vijay Sasanur, who was the then Inspector General of  Police, COD and that the second respondent, who was  then working as the Director General of Police, COD was  the Reviewing authority; the allegations made against the  second respondent by the appellant are motivated, totally  baseless and false.   The Tribunal opined that the allegations made by  the appellant against the second respondent are abusive,  malicious and have caused acute discomfort and  embarrassment to the second respondent personally and  that it is appropriate for the Government of Karnataka to  initiate suitable action against the appellant.  Mr. C.  Dinakar, 2nd respondent, appeared in person and  submitted his case. We have perused the impugned Annual Confidential  Reports which is for a brief period of 4 months and 19  days i.e. from 16.10.1996 to 15.3.1997 for which period  the 2nd respondent was the reviewing authority as, in the  first half, inter alia, the appellant was deputed to the  Olympic Games at Atlanta, U.S.A. and in this brief period  there was no review.  C. Dinakar, the second respondent  who appeared in person contended before the Tribunal  that the impugned Annual Confidential Reports written  by the reporting authority and the reviewing authority  are in conformity with the provisions of the Rules and the  instructions issued by the Government of India from time  to time and that the remarks written by the reporting  authority cannot be faulted with or condemned on the  ground of mala fide.  The only additions made by the  Reviewing authority are the following: "Arrogant officer, His knowledge and work is good,  but he cannot be objective and impartial in discharging  his duties."     According to second respondent, Rule 5(3) envisages  recording of remarks for a part of the year and therefore,  the recording of the impugned remarks by the reporting  authority and the Reviewing authority cannot be faulted  with.  At the time of hearing, our attention was drawn to  the communication dated 18.1.1998 sent by the  appellant to the Chief Secretary, Government of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

Karnataka in reply to the communication dated  9.12.1997 of the Chief Secretary communicating the  adverse remarks.  We have gone through the entire reply  dated 18.1.1998.  Our attention was also drawn to the  proceedings of the Government of Karnataka (Annexure  P-3) which was the order passed by the Government of  Karnataka refusing to expunge the remarks for the  reasons mentioned thereunder.  The Government before  passing the said order has also examined the request of  the appellant after obtaining comments of the  authorities, namely, the reporting authority and the  reviewing authority that have recorded the adverse  remarks and found that there are no grounds to expunge  the adverse remarks. On our request, the comments offered by the  reporting authority and the reviewing authority were also  brought to our notice and we have perused the same.  In  the circumstances, the Government of Karnataka after  obtaining the comments of the authorities who have  recorded the adverse remarks found that there are no  grounds to expunge the adverse remarks and accordingly  rejected the representation made by the appellant to  expunge the adverse remarks. As already noticed, all the adverse remarks were  recorded by the reporting authority, Late Mr. Vijay  Sasanur.  However, the whole basis of attack of the  impugned adverse remarks alleging the ill-will and mala  fide was made by the appellant only against the second  respondent.  The grounds taken in the original  application and the grounds mentioned in the  representation of the appellant are all based on the  misconceived perception on the part of the appellant that  the second respondent alone is the author of the adverse  remarks and the second respondent is biased against the  appellant and, therefore, he deliberately authored those  remarks against the appellant as a vindictive measure.   We have also carefully analysed as to whether any  other ground was made to assail the impugned adverse  remarks apart from the remarks made against the  appellant by the second respondent.  We have not found  any other ground except the personal attack made  against the second respondent. The appellant has failed to implead the reporting  authority as a party to the proceedings who made the  drastic adverse remarks against the appellant at the time  of offering his remarks to the Government.  However, the  remarks/comments made by the reporting authority and  the reviewing authority were also placed before us at the  time of hearing.  Unfortunately, the reporting authority  was not made a party-respondent to the proceedings in  question.   As directed by us, the Government of Karnataka  placed before us the entire service records of the  appellant from 1978-1979 to 2005-2006.   Except the  impugned adverse remarks, all other entries are  "excellent", "very good" and "outstanding".  Many officers  have rated the appellant as a smart and well balanced  officer and has excellent perception of I.B’s role in  national security and has excellent power of  communication both verbal and written and his    Conduct and character is "very good" and has  contributed very significantly for the overall intelligence  output of the SIB as also on enhancing its image among  young employees.   On 25.7.1990, the Accepting authority, Mr. K.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Saranyan, Additional Director, IB Headquarters, New  Delhi, fully endorsed the Reviewing Officer’s assessment  that the officer is "outstanding".     For the period 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991, the  appellant was graded as a very good officer.    For the period 1.4.1991 to 1.10.1991, the  Accepting authority made the remarks that "he has been  ably assisting the DGP and shows keen interest to receive  instructions and do good work".   For the period 1.11.1991 to 31.3.1992, Mr.  Dharam singh made the remarks found him quite a  knowledgeable officer, hard working and when asked,  can tender unbiased opinions.   For the period ending 31.3.1993, he has been  graded as "very good".   For the period ending 31.1.1994, he has been  graded as "outstanding".   Mr. J.C. Lynn, Chief Secretary,  Government of Karnataka, graded him as "outstanding".   From 16.10.1996 to 15.3.1997, the impugned  adverse remarks were "an arrogant officer, his knowledge  of work is good but he cannot be objective and impartial  in discharging his duties."    From 1.4.1997 to 18.4.1997, he has been graded as  "very good" by Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, Chief Secretary,  Government of Karnataka.  However, for all these years,  Mr. V.V. Bhaskar, the Director General of Police has  graded him as an officer of outstanding merit.   From 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999, he has been graded  as "very good".   From 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000, he has been graded  as "excellent" and under his guidance and supervision  his staff was able to detect large number of smuggling  forest produce and trade in wild life.   Mr. V.V. Bhaskar, the Director General of Police  graded him as "outstanding".   From 14.7.2000 to 28.2.2001 \026 Mr. C. Dinakar, IPS  (Retd.), (2nd respondent), Director General & Inspector  General of Police, Karnataka State, Banglore, in  paragraph 20 made general assessment as follows: "An arrogant and undisciplined officer against  whom the Central Administrative Tribunal passed  strictures and ordered him to pay cost of Rs.3000/-  (which he paid) for using intemperate and  unrestrained language."   

The above remarks were not accepted by the  Additional Chief Secretary & Principal Secretary to  government, Home & Transport Department and his  assessment is as follows: "His integrity is beyond doubt.  The remarks at  S.No.20 relate to period from 16.10.1996 to 15.3.1997.   My assessment of the officer is that he did very good  work and have taken keen interest in computerization  programme of the Department and reviewed other  works assigned to him like crime review and Forensic  Science Laboratory. "

From 1.4.2001 to 31.7.2001 \026 Dr. K. Sreenivasan,  Director General & Inspector General of Police,  Karnataka State, Bangalore found him as "outstanding"  and Mr. M.B. Prakash, the Additional Chief Secretary &  Principal Secretary to Government Home & Transport  Department was also agreed to the said grading.   For the period ending 31.3.2002, he has been  graded as "outstanding" by Mr. M.D. Singh, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Additional Director General of Police, Crime and  Technical Services, Bangalore.   For the period 1.4.2002 to 30.9.2002, again Mr.  M.D. Singh graded him as "Outstanding".  Mr. V.V.  Bhaskar, Director General & Inspector General of Police,  Karnataka State, graded him as "Outstanding" and Mr.  Adhip Chaudhury, Additional Chief Secretary & Principal  Secretary to Govt. graded him as an excellent officer.  For  the same year, Dr. A. Ravindra, Chief Secretary,  Government of Karnataka graded him as an outstanding  officer.   For the period ending 31.3.2003, due to special  efforts put in by him, the 46th   All India Police Duty Meet  2002 held at Bangalore was conducted in an excellent  manner.  He played a major part in the publication of  crime related data with caption "Crime in Karnataka" for  the years 2000 and 2001.  Mr. T. Mudiyal, Director  General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka  State, Bangalore graded him "outstanding".   For the period pending 31.3.2004, Mr. T. Mudiyal  recorded him as follows: "A very knowledgeable and disciplined officer.        He applied his mind to all the details and executes the  work to near perfection.  He is a willing worker and his  skills of communication are excellent.  In the field of  computerization in the Department he has done  extremely good work.  He can anticipate and prepare  himself to various situations very well.    Grading : Outstanding."

For the period ending 31.3.2005, Mr. K.K. Misra,  Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana  Soudha, Bangalore made the remarks as follows: "General Assessment: An officer with a most  pleasing personality.  Endowed with a sharp and  inquiring mind, he has tremendous conceptual ability as  he has been proved by the quantum leap achieved in  Karnataka Police Computerization during his  stewardship.  He has absolute clarity in both oral and  written communication.  His proven analytical and  planning abilities are evident in the excellence seen in his  work.  His leadership qualities and initiative have always  come to the fore particularly in the way he has harnessed  the limited resources at the SCRB and initiated several   e-governance projects taking police computerization to  great heights.  Attention to details is one of his virtues.   With his trademark hard work & Industry he has earned  an unimpeachable reputation as a conscientious officer  with a sound judgment and a flair for taking correct and  lightening quick decisions.  His speed of disposal is  remarkable.  He is ever willing to accept responsibility  readily with a smile.  His relations with subordinates,  colleagues and general public are very cordial.  He has  evinced an extraordinary interest in the development of  subordinates and used training as a tool for the purpose,  having implemented computer based training at the PS  level.  His tribes and weaker sections of society is not  only unquestionable but is tinged with compassion.  A  brilliant officer with innovative ideas.  Truly an asset to  the IPS." In column 5, the remarks made are as under: "He has very rich experience in use of computer in  Police Department." In column 6, "For the reasons brought out above,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the officer richly deserves outstanding grading." For the period ending 31.3.2006, Mr. B.S. Sial,  Director General & Inspector General of Police,  Karnataka State, Bangalore assessed him as follows: "He is well versed in his area of responsibility  and has been acquitting himself excellently in those  fields.  He is industrious, intelligent and has clarity of  mind with very good communication skills.  He is an  officer with initiative, judgement and promptitude and  takes decisions.  He is always willing to accept  challenging responsibilities.  He has cordial relations  with subordinates and superiors and good public  relations.  His attitude towards scheduled castes,  scheduled tribes and weaker sections is cordial,  understanding, compassionate and empathetic.

3.      Integrity : beyond doubt

4.      Grading : Outstanding."

From the above remarks made by the different  authorities at different points of time, it will be evident  that the appellant is an officer of outstanding qualities  and merit.  Except for the impugned remarks made by  the reporting officer and by the second respondent as the  reviewing authority, he has been consistently graded as  "outstanding", "very good" and "excellent" and has also  been entrusted with various responsibilities.  It is true  that in his representation he has used intemperate  language, mainly against respondent No.2, on an  erroneous assumption that the adverse remarks had  been made by the said respondent, but use of such  intemperate language has to be looked at objectively after  careful consideration of all the Annual Confidential  Reports for all the years which are also before us.  It will  have to be considered whether the remarks made by the  reporting officer and the reviewing officer were sufficient  in themselves to merit the overall assessment of   "average" as against the consistently excellent remarks in  the confidential reports both before and after the period  in question.  In fact, the remarks of the Additional Chief  Secretary and Principal Secretary to the Government,  Home and Transport Department, while disagreeing with  the general assessment made by the second respondent  of the appellant’s performance from 14.7.2000 to  28.2.2001, also merits  consideration.  The confidential report is an important document as  it provides the basic and vital inputs for assessing the  performance of an officer and further achievements in his  career.  This Court has held that the performance  appraisal through C.Rs. should be used as a tool for  human resource development and is not to be used as a  fault finding process but a developmental one.  Except for  the impugned adverse remarks for a short period of  about 150 days, the performance of the appellant has  been consistently of high quality with various  achievements and prestigious postings and meritorious  awards from the President of India.  We have already  seen that the appellant has been graded as "very good",  "excellent" and "outstanding" throughout his career.  It is  difficult to appreciate as to how it could become adverse  during the period of 150 days for which the adverse  remarks were made.  Furthermore, despite such adverse  remarks, the Government of Karnataka, considering his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

merit and ability and outstanding qualities, has already  promoted the appellant as the Inspector General of  Police. Although, the remarks made by the reporting officer  has been questioned by the appellant as if they had been  made by the respondent No.2, the Court still has to make  an assessment as to whether the said remarks were  merited by the appellant on account of his consistently  good performance.  Even his outburst against the  respondent No.2 in his representation appears to be a fall  out of such presumption which was certainly not  expected of an officer of the rank and caliber of the  appellant.  But, in our view, the same should not come in  the way of an otherwise unblemished and outstanding  career. In our view, the High Court was prejudiced by the  intemperate outburst of the appellant in his  representation, which led to the dismissal of the writ  petition.   On account of such prejudice, the High Court  chose to ignore the consistently good record of the  appellant and based its judgment on the basis of the  language used by the appellant in his representation.   Furthermore, the High Court also failed to appreciate  that remarks such as  "anything but smiling", "cannot  vibe with his seniors" and "his decision making was  governed by his paradigm" are not remarks which are  adverse or could have been used to justify the average  rating in the appellant’s A.C.R. 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. 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. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the civil appeal  and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the  High Court in Writ Petition No.3310/2005.  The  authorities are directed not to treat the appellant’s  performance during the period in question as average.   The appellant should also desist from using intemperate  and abusive language in future while discharging his  official functions. There will be no order as to costs.