Raju Narayana Swamy vs State Of Kerala

2025 INSC 563 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3215 OF 2025

Raju Naryana Swamy …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Kerala & Ors. …..Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appellant is an IAS officer of the 1991 batch in the Kerala

cadre. He has a brilliant academic record and is the seniormost

officer of the said batch. He was promoted to the grade of

Principal Secretary w.e.f. 1.06.2016. The next promotion was to

the grade of Chief Secretary. The selection to the Chief Secretary

grade is governed by Clause VI of the ‘Principles regarding

Promotion of Members of IAS’ as per Note 1 appended to Rule

3(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016. The zone of consideration

comprises all members of the Service who have completed a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON tenure of 30 years. The selection is to be made by a Screening Date: 2025.04.23 18:27:20 IST Reason:

Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, one officer working

Page 1 of 13 in the promotional grade cadre and another officer of the same

grade serving in Government of India.

2. The Guidelines framed for functioning of Screening

Committee, inter alia, provide meetings of the Committee shall

be convened on a yearly basis to fill up existing as well as

anticipated vacancies in the cadre from the panel of eligible

candidates. A combined reading of relevant clauses1 governing

1General Guidelines for Promotion etc. and functioning of Screening Committees “Cl. 4.1 The proposals should be completed and submitted to the Committee well in time. No proposal for holding a Committee meeting should be sent until and unless at least 90% of the up-to-date and complete ACRs are available. Every effort should be made to keep the ACR dossiers up-to-date lest this aspect is advanced as the reason for not holding the Committee meetings in time. The officer referred in para 2 above would be responsible for monitoring and the completion of the ACR dossiers as per the extant instruction in this regard. In respect of cases relating to confirmation and assessment of the work and conduct of probationers, he would ensure the timely submission of the Assessment Reports etc. Cl. 6. Each Committee should decide its own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates. While merit has to be recognized and rewarded,. advancement in an officer’s career should not be regarded as a matter of course. It should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented performance as reflected in the annual confidential report and based on strict and rigorous selection process. The misconception about “Average” performance also requires to be cleared. While “Average” may not be taken as adverse remark in respect of an officer, it cannot also be regarded as complimentary to the officer. Such performance should be regarded as routine and undistinguished. Nothing short of above- average and noteworthy performance should entitle an officer to recognition and suitable rewards in terms of career progression. Cl. 7.1 The Annual Confidential Reports are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each Committee. The evaluation of ACRs should be fair, just and non-discriminatory. The Committee should consider ACRs for equal number of years in respect of all officers falling within the zone of consideration for assessing their suitability for promotion. Where one or more ACRs have not been written for any reason, the Committee should consider the available ACRs. If the Reviewing Authority or the Accepting Authority as the case may be, has overruled the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Authority respectively, the remarks of the Accepting Authority should be taken as the final remarks for the purposes of assessment. While making the assessment, the Committee should not be guided merely by the overall grading that may be recorded in the ACRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the overall entries made in the ACRs.

Page 2 of 13 the procedure for selection would show until and unless 90% of

updated and complete ACRs/PARs of an officer are available,

his proposal for promotion shall not be submitted to the

Committee. However, even if requisite percentage of ACRs have

not been written for any reason, the Committee is empowered to

consider available ACRs, subject to the appraisal of ACRs for

equal number of years in respect of all officers falling in the zone

of consideration. While making an assessment, the Committee

need not be guided merely by ACR gradings but is entitled to

make its own assessment of overall entries made in the ACRs.

There shall be no benchmark for assessing suitability of the

officers for promotion.

3. The Committee shall also consider any major or minor

penalty or displeasure of any higher authority conveyed to the

Cl. 7.2 In the case of each officer, an overall grading should be given which will be either “Fit” or “Unfit”. There will be no benchmark for assessing suitability of officers for promotions.

Cl. 7.3 Before making the overall grading, the Committee should take into account whether the officer has been awarded any major or minor penalty or whether any displeasure of any higher authority has been conveyed to him. Similarly, the Committee would also take note of the commendations received by the officer during his service career. The Committee would also give due regard to the remarks indicated against the column of integrity. The list of candidates considered by the Committee and the overall grading thus assigned to each candidate would form the basis for preparation of the panel for promotion.”

Page 3 of 13 officer in addition to commendation, if any, received during his

service career.

4. Clause 23 of the Guidelines permits review of

proceedings of the Selection Committee only if material facts

were not taken into consideration or if there were grave errors

in the procedure.

5. In the present case, Screening Committee convened on

14.12.2020 for assessing suitability of eligible officers of 1991

Batch. Though the appellant was to complete 30 years of service

and 90% of his ACRs had not been written, he was assessed

along with other eligible officers as a ‘special case’ based on his

available ACRs. Upon assessment, the Screening Committee

found him ineligible for promotion holding as follows:

“4. The Committee have examined entire ACRs/PARs of 30 years in respect of the above officers and found that 90% of the ACRs/PARs are available in respect of all the officers except Dr. Raju Narayanaswamy. The Committee also noticed that no proposal for holding a committee meeting should be sent until and unless at least 90% of the up-to-date ACRs are available. As such as per para 4.1 of Principles regarding Promotion of Members of the Indian Administrative Service and Composition of Departmental Promotion Committees, the name of Dr. Raju Narayanaswamy is not fit to be placed before the Screening Committee for considering as the ACRs/PARs of about five years are missing. However, Screening Committee has verified entire ACRs/PARs of Dr. Raju Narayanaswamy as a special case. The gradings/remarks recorded in his available ACRs/PARs are also not satisfactory. The Committee found that the performance of the officer has been below

Page 4 of 13 noteworthy over the years. After detailed discussion, the Committee, has come to the conclusion that the name of Dr. Raju Narayanaswamy, IAS is not fit to be included in the panel for promotion to the Apex Scale i.e. Chief Secretary Grade of IAS, the vital position in Administration. Hence, the Committee has decided not to recommend his name.”

6. Aforesaid decision of the Screening Committee was

approved by the Council of Ministers.

7. Being aggrieved by the decision, appellant made a

representation for review under Clause 23 of the Guidelines

(supra). Since no steps were taken, appellant approached

Central Administrative Tribunal2. CAT disposed of the matter

directing the Review Committee to take a decision on the

representation of the appellant within three months.

8. Appellant being one of the seniormost officers, the

Review Committee comprised the then Chief Secretary of the

State. Appellant was given an opportunity of hearing before the

hearing officer. After considering the report of the hearing

officer, the Review Committee by order dated 27.04.2021

rejected the application, inter alia, holding as follows:

“5. On examining the report of the hearing officer, it is found that, there have been at least five instances where the officer has been rated poorly by the officials in the chain of command writing his Confidential Reports and his leadership quality and interpersonal skills have been rated as not befitting an officer who

2 Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’ for short), Ernakulam Bench in O.A. 110/2021.

Page 5 of 13 has to lead a team. Also, there have been records in the ACRs/PARs regarding his absence from important meetings. The officer has been observed to be a serial litigant as per an ACRs/PARs. The officer in course of hearing threatened that he would be filing cases for defamation against the officers who wrote his ACRs/PARs. During the service period, the ACRs/PARs of the officer are not available for eleven instances. Among them 01.01.2001 to 16.09.2002 (1 year 8 months 16 days) & 27.6.2008 to 31.03.2010 (1 year 9 months and 5 days) are the longest periods in which the APARs of the officer are not available. Further, during the period from 19.3.2019 to 17.3.2020, the Officer has been on unauthorised absence which has not been regularised so far.”

9. Review Committee further noted the adverse remarks in

the ACRs/PARs were substantiated by relevant records. Other

than ACRs/PARs, the Committee observed instances of lack of

interpersonal skills evident from the conclusion of the Fact

Finding report and observations by CAT3 enumerating detailed

instances of indiscipline and improprieties of the officer.

10. Aggrieved by such decision, appellant approached CAT4.

CAT dismissed the application which was challenged by

appellant before the High Court.

11. The High Court noted 90% of appellant’s ACR were not

available and the Screening Committee was handicapped in

considering his case for want of ACRs. The Court also observed

appellant failed to demonstrate that he had submitted self-

3 CAT, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 310/1011/2019. 4 CAT, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. 180/199/2021.

Page 6 of 13 appraisal forms for preparing ACRs. Accordingly, High Court

without going into the correctness of the decision of the Review

Committee gave liberty to appellant to approach the authorities

for preparation of his ACRs and consider his promotion to the

grade of Chief Secretary after ensuring availability of 90% of his

ACRs.

12. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Subhash

Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contend

the Review Committee travelled beyond the reasons recorded by

Screening Committee to justify rejection of claim for promotion.

Instead of assessing the appellant solely on his post-2016

grading i.e. ‘outstanding’ and ‘very good’, Committee relied on

adverse entries prior to 2016 which had been ‘washed off’

pursuant to appellant’s promotion. The Review Committee also

illegally took into consideration the observations in the Fact

Finding report, which was neither a part of ACRs nor

communicated to the appellant. Even the findings in the CAT

order5 not being a part of the ACRs ought not to have been

looked into. These are serious procedural irregularities which

were glossed over by the High Court. Without examining the

5 CAT, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 310/1011/2019

Page 7 of 13 matter from this perspective, High Court merely gave appellant

liberty to approach the authorities for fresh consideration after

generation of 90% of ACRs.

13. In reply, Mr. Giri with Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned

Senior Counsels for the respondent-State argued though 90% of

appellant’s ACRs were not written, he was considered as a

‘special case’. Post his promotion in 2016, only two ACRs were

available. This necessitated the Committee to look into prior

ACRs/PARs of the appellant. Even if one ignores the notings in

prior ACRs, service records for 2019-20 show the appellant had

unauthorizedly absented himself for about a year i.e. from

19.03.2019 to 16.03.2020. Promotion to the highest grade i.e.

Chief Secretary grade is a sensitive matter and requires

examination of the entire service record. Respondents 3 and 4

have also supported these contentions through their written

submissions.

14. The nub of the challenge thrown to the decision of the

Review Committee is that it had considered

additional/extraneous materials in rejecting the appellant’s

prayer for review.

Page 8 of 13

15. It is contended the Review Committee could not have

considered the adverse entries made in ACRs/PARs prior to the

appellant’s promotion in 2016.

16. In support of the plea, reliance is placed on Baidyanath

Mahapatra v. State of Orissa6, Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of

Jharkhand & Ors.7 and High Court of Judicature at Patna v.

Shyam Deo Singh & Ors.8 Cited authorities deal with impact of

pre-promotion adverse entries in ACRs on the issue of

compulsory retirement, though in passing it is observed such

prior entries may not be considered for further promotion.

17. In Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.9 the

impact of prior entries in ACRs on promotion squarely fell for

decision. This Court summarized the law as:

“58. From the above judgments, the following principles can be summarised:

(1) Under Article 16 of the Constitution, right to be “considered” for promotion is a fundamental right. It is not the mere “consideration” for promotion that is important but the “consideration” must be “fair” according to established principles governing service jurisprudence.

(2) Courts will not interfere with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad according to Wednesbury principles or it was mala fides. (3) Adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of service can be taken into consideration while promoting an officer or while

6 (1989) 4 SCC 664 7 (2010) 10 SCC 693 8 (2014) 4 SCC 773 9 (2000) 8 SCC 395

Page 9 of 13 passing an order of compulsory retirement. But the weight which must be attached to the adverse remarks depends upon certain sound principles of fairness.

(4) If the adverse remarks relate to a distant past and relate to remarks such as his not putting his maximum effort or so on, then those remarks cannot be given weight after a long distance of time, particularly if there are no such remarks during the period before his promotion. This is the position even in cases of compulsory retirement.

(5) If the adverse remarks relate to a period prior to an earlier promotion they must be treated as having lost their sting and as weak material, subject however to the rider that if they related to dishonesty or lack of integrity they can be considered to have not lost their strength fully so as to be ignored altogether. (6) Uncommunicated adverse remarks could be relied upon even if no opportunity was given to represent against them before an order of compulsory retirement is passed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

18. Applying the ratio to the facts of the case, it appears that

the Committee was entitled to consider the entire service record

of the appellant while considering him for promotion to the

highest echelons of civil service. But the adverse entries prior to

his earlier promotion would lose their sting and be treated as

‘weak material’ unless they relate to dishonesty or lack of

integrity.

19. Admittedly, adverse entries in ACRs prior to earlier

promotion in 2016 do not relate to dishonesty and cannot by

themselves constitute a ground to deny promotion to the next

higher grade. But if the service record of the officer post

promotion shows a similar trend of lack of discipline or

interpersonal skills as reflected in the earlier entries, it may lend

Page 10 of 13 assurance to conclusion of the Committee that the earlier

promotion has not invigorated the officer concerned and he

continues to dwell in similar aberrations justifying the denial of

further promotion.

20. The Review Committee had examined the entire service

record of appellant and noted that in 2019-20 appellant had

absented himself for about a year without justifiable cause. A

show cause notice was also issued in this regard. Subsequently

the said period has been treated as ‘non-duty’ i.e. absence

without leave. This conduct was taken into consideration to

deny promotion to appellant to the highest echelon of civil

service. It cannot be said that the decision of the Review

Committee was solely based on adverse entries in ACRs/PARs

prior to promotion or on uncommunicated observations in the

Fact Finding report.

21. The submission that the Review Committee looked into

additional material and supplied new reasons to justify denial

of promotion is erroneous. The rationale expressed by Screening

Committee was merely amplified by the Review Committee in

light of the submissions and material placed by appellant.

Page 11 of 13 During hearing of his review application, appellant alleged his

reporting authorities were biased and threatened to sue them

for defamation. Refuting such claim, Review Committee

observed noting the appellant’s brilliance he had been awarded

high grades to give him a chance for correction, which he failed

to utilize. Such observation shows a fair and objective

assessment by Review Committee after taking into

consideration both commendations and adverse conduct of

appellant.

22. Individual excellence may sometimes lead to superiority

complex and hinder commitment to discipline, decorum and

collegiality. Keeping in mind the essential requisite of collective

leadership in highest echelons of civil service, the Committee

was justified in giving due weightage to lack of adherence to

discipline and collegiality.

23. Mr. Basant’s argument that no benchmark score was

fixed as per Rule 2 of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 is of little

consequence. Clause 7.2 of the Guidelines unequivocally states

that no benchmark is to be fixed. Be that as it may, failure to

fix benchmark score cannot be treated as a marker of

Page 12 of 13 arbitrariness or discrimination since appellant was considered

as a ‘special case’ though 90% of his ACRs were not available.

24. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said the decision of

the Committee is either mala fide or so unreasonable that a man

of ordinary prudence would not have come to such a conclusion.

It may also be relevant to bear in mind that Screening

Committee decision had not been assailed by appellant.

25. Much water has flown since then. In 2021 as well as 2022,

appellant’s case was again considered and rejected by the

Screening Committee. Thereafter, the High Court has again

given opportunity to the appellant to approach the authorities

concerned for generation of 90% of the ACRs and

reconsideration of his case. Given this situation, no case for

interference is made out and the appeal is dismissed.

….……..…..……...……………………….J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

….……..…..……...……………………….J. (JOYMALYA BAGCHI) New Delhi, April 23, 2025

Page 13 of 13