Raju Narayana Swamy v. State of Kerala

Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/bqpa/
Citations: 2025 INSC 563
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, *Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025; April 23, 2025
Case Name: Raju Narayana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Service Law – Promotion to Chief Secretary Grade – IAS Officer – Screening Committee – Review Committee – Adverse ACRs – Consideration of pre-promotion entries – Discipline and interpersonal skills – Unauthorized absence – No benchmark for promotion – Decision upheld.

Held

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an IAS officer challenging the denial of promotion to Chief Secretary grade. The Court held that the Review Committee was entitled to consider the officer’s entire service record, including pre-promotion adverse ACRs, though such entries lose sting unless related to dishonesty or lack of integrity. Post-promotion unauthorized absence and lack of discipline justified denial of promotion. The Committee’s consideration of additional material was an amplification of the Screening Committee’s rationale, not extraneous. No benchmark for promotion was required as per guidelines, and the decision was neither mala fide nor unreasonable. The High Court’s direction to reconsider the case after generating 90% ACRs was noted, but no interference was warranted.

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R, AOR Ms. Krishna L R, Adv. Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sarvshree, AOR Ms. Soumya Sandilaya, Adv.

Videos

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJgKyFWSVVo
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1063921235794706

Facts

The appellant, an IAS officer of the 1991 Kerala cadre, challenged the denial of promotion to Chief Secretary grade. Promoted to Principal Secretary in 2016, he was assessed by the Screening Committee in 2020, which found him ineligible due to missing 90% ACRs and unsatisfactory performance in available ACRs. The Review Committee (2021) upheld this, citing poor leadership, interpersonal skills, unauthorized absence (2019-20), and prior adverse ACRs. The Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court dismissed his challenges, with the High Court allowing reconsideration after generating 90% ACRs.

Issues

1. Whether the Review Committee erred in considering pre-2016 adverse ACRs and extraneous materials (e.g., Fact Finding report, CAT observations).
2. Whether the denial of promotion was arbitrary, mala fide, or procedurally irregular.
3. Whether the absence of a benchmark score for promotion invalidated the decision.

Arguments

• Appellant: The Review Committee improperly relied on pre-2016 adverse ACRs (washed off by 2016 promotion), uncommunicated Fact Finding report, and CAT observations. Only post-2016 “outstanding” and “very good” ACRs should have been considered. The High Court failed to address procedural irregularities.
• Respondents: The Committee considered the appellant as a “special case” despite missing ACRs. Post-2016 records, including unauthorized absence, justified denial. The entire service record, including prior ACRs, was relevant for the sensitive Chief Secretary role.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding:

1. The Review Committee could consider the entire service record, including pre-2016 ACRs, which lose sting unless related to dishonesty or integrity. Post-2016 unauthorized absence and lack of discipline reinforced earlier trends, justifying denial.
2. The Committee’s use of additional material amplified the Screening Committee’s rationale, not extraneous. The process was fair, considering commendations and adverse conduct.
3. No benchmark was required per guidelines, and the decision was neither mala fide nor unreasonable.
4. The High Court’s direction for reconsideration after generating 90% ACRs was sufficient, and subsequent rejections (2021, 2022) supported non-interference.

Ratio

• Pre-promotion adverse ACRs can be considered for promotion but are weak unless tied to dishonesty or integrity. Post-promotion conduct reflecting similar issues can justify denial.
• Promotion to sensitive roles like Chief Secretary requires assessing discipline and collegiality across the entire service record.
• Procedural fairness under Article 16 mandates objective assessment, not mere consideration, but courts defer to Committee decisions unless mala fide or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Disposition

Appeal dismissed. No interference with the High Court’s order.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary reason the Screening Committee found Dr. Raju Narayana Swamy ineligible for promotion to Chief Secretary grade?
   a) Lack of academic qualifications
   b) Missing 90% ACRs and unsatisfactory performance in available ACRs
   c) Criminal charges pending against him
   d) Failure to complete mandatory training
   Answer: b) Missing 90% ACRs and unsatisfactory performance in available ACRs
2. What did the Supreme Court hold regarding the consideration of pre-promotion adverse ACRs for promotion decisions?
   a) They cannot be considered under any circumstances
   b) They can be considered but lose sting unless related to dishonesty or lack of integrity
   c) They are the sole basis for denying promotion
   d) They must be ignored if uncommunicated
   Answer: b) They can be considered but lose sting unless related to dishonesty or lack of integrity
3. Which guideline allowed the Review Committee to consider the appellant’s case despite missing 90% ACRs?
   a) Clause 4.1 of the Promotion Guidelines
   b) Clause 7.2 of the Promotion Guidelines
   c) Clause 23 of the Promotion Guidelines
   d) The Committee’s discretion to assess available ACRs
   Answer: d) The Committee’s discretion to assess available ACRs
4. What post-promotion conduct of the appellant was a key factor in denying his promotion?
   a) Filing multiple lawsuits
   b) Unauthorized absence for about a year in 2019-20
   c) Poor academic performance
   d) Lack of seniority
   Answer: b) Unauthorized absence for about a year in 2019-20
5. Why did the Supreme Court find the Review Committee’s decision neither mala fide nor unreasonable?
   a) It ignored all adverse remarks
   b) It fairly assessed both commendations and adverse conduct
   c) It relied solely on pre-2016 ACRs
   d) It followed a fixed benchmark score
   Answer: b) It fairly assessed both commendations and adverse conduct

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the basis of Dr. Raju Narayana Swamy’s challenge to the denial of his promotion to Chief Secretary grade?
   Dr. Swamy argued that the Review Committee improperly considered pre-2016 adverse ACRs (washed off by his 2016 promotion), uncommunicated Fact Finding report, and CAT observations. He claimed only his post-2016 “outstanding” and “very good” ACRs should have been considered, and the process was procedurally irregular.
2. Why was the appellant considered for promotion despite missing 90% of his ACRs?
   The Screening Committee assessed Dr. Swamy as a “special case” based on available ACRs, as permitted by the Promotion Guidelines, which allow consideration of available ACRs when the requisite 90% are unavailable, provided equal years are appraised for all candidates.
3. How did the Supreme Court justify the Review Committee’s consideration of pre-2016 adverse ACRs?
   The Court held that the Committee could consider the entire service record, but pre-promotion adverse ACRs lose their sting unless related to dishonesty or lack of integrity. In this case, they were relevant as post-2016 conduct (e.g., unauthorized absence) reflected similar issues of indiscipline.
4. What role did the appellant’s unauthorized absence play in the decision?
   The Review Committee noted Dr. Swamy’s unauthorized absence for about a year (2019-20), treated as “non-duty,” as evidence of continued lack of discipline post-2016, reinforcing earlier adverse remarks and justifying denial of promotion to the sensitive Chief Secretary role.
5. Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the appeal despite the absence of a benchmark score for promotion?
   The Court noted that Clause 7.2 of the Promotion Guidelines explicitly states no benchmark is required for promotion assessments. The Committee’s decision was fair, objective, and not arbitrary, as it considered the appellant’s entire record, including commendations and adverse conduct.
6. What remedy did the High Court provide, and why did the Supreme Court not interfere?
   The High Court allowed Dr. Swamy to approach authorities for generating 90% ACRs and reconsideration of his promotion. The Supreme Court found no mala fide or unreasonable conduct in the Committee’s decision, and subsequent rejections in 2021 and 2022 supported non-interference, especially given the High Court’s remedy.