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.