Jharkhand High Court news: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a 25-year-old adverse entry against a retired CRPF commandant, emphasising that government authorities cannot “travel beyond” communicated entries or add new allegations in the service record without communicating the same to the employee.
While dealing with a plea of a 74-year-old retired CRPF commandant challenging the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR), a division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad said that labeling an officer a “liability to the force” for absences that were sanctioned by the department constitutes a gross failure of natural justice.
“The purpose of communication of the adverse entry is not merely a formality; it is for the specific purpose, i.e, to provide an adequate opportunity to defend the imputation made by recording in the service record, which will prejudice the future service avenues of the concerned public servant,” the court said on April 7.
The bench heard the matter on April 7.
Considering the question whether it is available for the authority to “travel beyond” the entry made in the service record without communicating, the order added that if any addition is being made in excess of the adverse entry recorded in the service record, the same will be said to be improper by virtue of the mala fide exercise of power of the appointing authority, as in the present case.
25-year-old case of adverse remark
The petitioner, Vijay Bihari Sharan, a 74-year-old retired commandant of Battalion 10, CRPF, challenged adverse entries made in his ACR for the period 2000-2001. The remarks claimed he absented himself from operational duties on “medical and every other pretext” and had become a “liability to the force”.
Sharan contended that his absence was necessitated by mandatory attendance at disciplinary inquiry proceedings in New Delhi and sanctioned medical leave for “Gross Lumber Spondylitis”. He argued that all movements were undertaken only after obtaining the necessary operational clearances and movement orders.
It was further pleaded that the petitioner had never shied away from any hard posting and the illness which had all of a sudden occurred during the said period subsided later and, therefore, it did not recur in future, nor did he ever take any ground of illness whatsoever during his entire service records, either in the past or thereafter.
Story continues below this ad
The petitioner was challenging the single judge’s order, which upheld the adverse remarks.
‘Can’t be subjected to adverse decision without…’
- We are concerned with the issue of communicating the adverse entry in the backdrop of the fact that, in a case where the adverse entry is being recorded in the service record.
- And if it is not communicated to the concerned public servant, then for all time to come, the recording of the adverse entry will prejudice the service career of the concerned public servant.
- The law has been laid down that after making an entry in the service record, the same is to be communicated mandatorily by allowing the concerned public servant to respond, and the same is for its consideration.
- The same is on the principle that a man cannot be subjected to any adverse decision without providing an opportunity for a hearing.
- For the purpose of providing an opportunity to hear, so that the principle of natural justice is followed.
- The another settled position of law is that while making entry in the service record said to be adverse one, for the purpose of providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned public servant considering the purpose thereof the adverse entry need to be communicated and there cannot be any addition of any other misconduct, if any, if it has not been recorded in the service record.
- The petitioner has been communicated with the same, but very surprisingly, the addition has been made.
⚖️ “Strong reasons to believe” must be backed by valid reasoning — not invoked mechanically to dismiss a representation
Valid reasoning is only possible after appreciating relevant documents — which were found lacking in this case
🏛️ Authority’s Stand
✅ Court’s Finding
Mechanical Rejection
Controlling authority cannot mechanically reject a representation merely citing “strong reasons to believe”
Document Scrutiny
Valid reasoning requires appreciation of relevant documents — found lacking in the present case
“The strong reasons to believe must be supported by a valid reason, which can only be possible after appreciating the relevant documents, which are lacking in the present case.”
Apr 2000 – Mar 2001
Period covered by adverse entry
Sep 24, 2001
Date of adverse entry communication
‘More than 25 years have already elapsed’
The court highlighted that it is a settled proposition of law that before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidentially should share the information that is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer, and then make it part of the record.
It added that this amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity, or conduct/corrupt proclivity.
“If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct, or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him,” the court observed.
Story continues below this ad
Considering that, since the year of adverse entry, more than 25 years have already elapsed, and the petitioner has been informed to be superannuated from service, the court said, if at this juncture, the matter is again remitted before the authority concerned, it will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.
The order added that a wrongdoer cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong, and is of the view that remanding the matter again before the respondent authority will not be just and proper.
