http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SRI M.A. RAJASEKHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   708

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the  Karnataka   Administrative  Tribunal,  Bangalore  dated 1.2.1992 made on Application No.1961/90. Admittedly when the appellant was  working as  s Tehsildar an adverse remark has been made for the year 1988-89 as under :-      "Competent, good  at  getting  work      done,    but     does    not    act      dispassionately  when   faced  with      dilemma."      Calling that  in question,  the appellant filed O.A. It is now  law that  the object of making adverse remarks is to assess  the   competence  of   an  officer   on  merits  and performance of  an officer  concerned so as to grade him, to various  categories   as  outstanding,   very  good,   good, satisfactory and  average etc.  The competent  authority and the reviewing authority have to act fairly or objectively on assessing the  character, integrity  and performance  of the incumbent. It  is seen  that in  the review  order,  various grounds on  which the  various criteria  are to  be complied with were specifically noted thus :      "3. A  perusal of Annexure -A1 goes      to show  that in  the  aspects  the      work   of    the    Applicant    is      satisfactory. According to the form      in which  the confidential  remarks      of the  officers is  to be written,      the reporting  officer is  required      to indicate  his assessment  of the      officer on the following aspects of      his work :      1. Knowledge of work;      2. Power of expression;      3.Power of acquiring general

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

         information;      4. Attention to detail;      5. Industry;      6. Judgment;      7. speed of disposal;      8.Willingness to accept      responsibility and to take      decision;      9. Relationship  with  subordinates      and colleagues;      10. Public relations;      11. Integrity.      The  report  about  all  the  above      aspects is  satisfactory. There  is      no adverse  report about integrity.      However, the  underlined remarks in      Annexure-A1  are   made.  the  last      sentence in those remarks indicates      that the  intention of  the officer      who  wrote  those  remarks  was  to      treat the  remarks as  advisory. He      has stated  that the officer should      evince more  interest. When all the      ten aspects  of the  work which are      required  to  be  assessed  by  the      rules are  satisfactory the alleged      adverse  remarks  get  considerably      diluted   and   we   are   of   the      considered opinion   that  ends  of      justice would  have served  of  the      remarks  are  treated  as  advisory      with a  direction that  they should      not be  made  use  of  against  the      Applicant for any purpose."      It was found that his integrity was not doubted and his work  also   in  all   those  respects   was  found   to  be satisfactory. Under  those circumstances, the remark that he "does not  act dispassionately then faced with dilemma" must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an  opportunity to  correct himself of the mistake . He should be  given an  opportunity   in the cases where he did not work  objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no such opportunity was  given. Even  when he  acted in  dilemma and lacked objectivity,  in such  circumstances  ,  he  must  be guided by  the authority  as to the manner in which he acted upon. Since  this exercise has been done by the respondents, it would  be obvious  that the  above adverse remark was not consistent with law.      Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The adverse remark stands expunged. No costs.