REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APELATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4724 OF 2008 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13030 of 2006]

Anil Mishra ..                   Appellants

-versus-

Union of India & Ors. ..       Respondents

J U D G M E M T  

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment of

the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 6.3.2006 in C.W.P. No.3526 of

2006.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The appellant  Anil  Mishra was a Deputy Commissioner of Central

Excise  &  Customs,  Central  Government.   He  filed  an  O.A.  before  the

Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh  Bench,  challenging  the

adverse entry made to him for the year 2000-01 vide letter dated 16.1.2002.

5. Against that adverse entry he had earlier filed a representation which

was rejected by the Chief Commissioner by order dated 14.7.2003.  Against

the  order  of  the  Chief  Commissioner,  the  appellant  made  further

representation  to  the  Central  Government,  which  was  rejected  by  the

Competent Authority of the Central Government, which has been conveyed

by  the  Under  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  India  by  his  letter  dated

30.9.2004.

5. Before the Tribunal the appellant submitted that the adverse entry had

been made malafide.  This fact had been considered by the Tribunal in para

9 of its order and the Tribunal observed that the appellant had not brought

to  its  notice  any  extraneous  factor  or  reason  as  to  why  the  concerned

authority  should  have  acted  in  a  malafide manner.   Moreover,  the

appellant’s  representation  against  that  adverse  entry  was  rejected  by  the

Chief  Commissioner,  and  his  further  representation  to  the  Central

Government was also rejected.  Hence the Tribunal rejected the OA of the

appellant.

6. Against the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition

before the High Court, which was also dismissed.  The High Court noted

that  the  plea  of  bias  had  been  considered  by  the  Tribunal  after  an

examination of the files and was rejected.  The High Court also observed

that the appellant’s representation was rejected by the Chief Commissioner,

who was a very senior officer, after seeing the record of the appellant, and

the  memorial  filed  by  the  appellant  was  also  rejected  vide  order  dated

30.9.2004.

7. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel  for the

parties, and we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the High Court

or  the  Tribunal.   This  is  not  a  case  where  the  adverse  entry  was  not

communicated  to  the  appellant.   It  was  not  only  communicated  but  the

appellant  made  representation  against  the  adverse  entry,  which  was

considered by the Chief Commissioner, who rejected the representation by a

detailed  speaking  order  of  5  pages.   Further  memorial  to  the  Central

Government  has  also  been considered  and dismissed.   Thus  three  senior

officers  have considered the appellant’s  case and rejected the same.  We

cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders.  The scope of judicial

review of administrative orders is limited as has been repeatedly held by this

Court, vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11.

8. Learned counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted that  the entries  before

2000  and  after  2000  were  not  adverse  to  the  appellant,  and  hence  the

isolated entry for 2000 appears to be biased.  This plea was not taken by the

appellant before the Tribunal or the High Court, and hence we cannot allow

it to be taken for the first time before us.  Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the appellant was not aware of the good entries before and

after the year 2000, and hence the appellant could not bring it to the notice

of  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court.   He also  submitted  that  the  entries

before  the  year  2000  and  after  the  year  2000  are  good  entries,  and  this

shows  that  the  isolated  entry  in  the  year  2000  was  for  extraneous

considerations.

9. We are of the opinion that if the appellant wanted to take this plea, he

could  have  done  it  before  the  Tribunal  or  the  High  Court.   Even if  the

entries before or after 2000 had not been communicated to him, he could

have  filed  an  application  before  the  Tribunal  or  the  High  Court  for

summoning  of  these  entries,  and the Tribunal  and  the  High Court  could

have summoned the same.  However, the appellant filed no such application

before the Tribunal for summoning these entries.  Hence the appellant has

himself to blame.

10. Had the appellant taken such a plea before the Tribunal and the High

Court, the respondent authorities would have had an opportunity to file a

reply in  rebuttal  to  this  plea.   Since the appellant  did  not  take  this  plea

before the Tribunal or the High Court, the department had no opportunity to

reply to it.  Hence we cannot allow this plea to be taken before us.

11. The Chief Commissioner and the Central Government are very high

authorities  and they have considered the representations  of  the appellant.

No bias has been attributed to the Chief Commissioner or to the Central

Government.

12. For  the  reasons  given  above,  we find  no  merit  in  this  appeal  and

hence it is dismissed.   No costs.     

………….………….……J. (Altamas Kabir)

………….………….……J. (Markandey Katju)

New Delhi; 30th July, 2008