Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently dismissed appeal preferred by a senior IAS Officer upholding the findings of the Review Committee.

A Division Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while dismissing the appeal observed,

“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.”

Court said that the decision of the Committee was neither mala fide nor so unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence questions the same – No interference is warranted, also considering the fact that the High Court had given the opportunity to the appellant to approach the necessary authorities for generation of 90% of the ACRs and reconsideration of his case, Court added.

Brief Background

Appellant was an IAS Officer, 1991 Batch, serving in Kerala Cadre.

He was promoted to the grade of Principal Secretary, w.e.f. 01.06.2016. The next promotion due was that of Chief Secretary, highest bureaucratic post in the State.

Screening committee that was convened for assessing the suitability of the 1991 batch officers for the next promotion, noted, “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.”

The appellant thereby made a representation for review under Clause 23 of the Guidelines for Promotion followed by institution of an original application before CAT.

The Central Administrative Tribunal disposed the matter directing the Review Committee to take a decision on the representation within three months – the Review Committee vide order dated 27.04.2021 rejected the application of the appellant, observing, “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 has to lead a team.”

Against the said decision, the appellant again approached CAT whereby his application was dismissed again, when he finally moved to the High Court, which gave liberty to the 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.

Case Title: Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala