COMMANDER P. V. NAYAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case throws light to the havoc that can be caused by a superior officer by recording adverse remarks in the confidential record. How the future of an officer, be he in the civil service or military service can be doomed by a superior is established in this case.

(2.) The facts germane for the decision of this O. P. are as follows: - The petitioner was commissioned in the Executive Branch of the Indian Navy in the year 1964. He is in the rank of Commander from 1979 onwards. He was selected by the Naval Head Quarters to head a special Indian Naval Detachment in Italy at Livorno in order to oversee production, inspection and seatrials of sophisticated homing torpedos manufactured for the Indian Navy. He used to report the progress made by the manufacturers. Due to delay in production by M/s. White Head Moto fides the stay of the Indian team headed by the petitioner had to be extended by nine months beyond the original contractual period of 21/2 years. The extended period was to expire on 30-6-1983. By April - May 1983 it became evident that the contractor was not in a position to complete the contract on or before 30-6-83. Nothing was heard on this issue from Delhi. Petitioner made arrangements for his return to India on 30th June itself. The Indian Embassy made all arrangements for the return of the petitioner and his team and gave clearance to move from Livorno to Rome. While at the Embassy he came to know of the decision requiring him to continue at Livorno till the end of July. Since the news of extension was taken as a bolt from the blue, petitioner gave certain details to the Indian Ambassador. The details so submitted were communicated to Delhi by the Ambassador as an official savingram. This savingram was not relished by the higher ups in Delhi. Petitioner and his team had to stay back in Italy till 31st July, 1983. On his return he was served with a show cause notice, a copy of which is marked as Ext. P7. He submitted his explanation, Ext. P8. The Chief of Naval staff by Ext. B10 appears to have exonerated him from liabilities. But he was served with Ext. P11 letter of displeasure. His superior officer in Delhi, who was found fault with by the Chief of Naval staff on account of his failure in not initiating action to extent the term of the stay of the petitioner and hit team of officers in Italy early, made adverse entries in the annual confidential report. That report was written by the Initiating Officer on 8-9-1983. But it was communicated to the petitioner only on 21-10-1983 (Friday) along with Ext. P12(a) communication. According to the petitioner, a promotion committee for selecting officer to the cadre of Captain was to meet on 24-10-1983 (Monday). Petitioner was not in a position to file any representation before any superior officer to have the adverse entry made by his superior officer namely Director of Naval Armament Inspection (DNAI). The Selection Board was to act on the confidential report of the officers concerned. On account of the adverse report made by DNAI petitioner was denied promotion. He represented the matter to the Naval Head Quarters and the Central Government. His request to have the adverse entries made by the DNAI expunged was turned down. On account of the adverse entries made in the confidential report of 1983 he was denied promotion in 1984 and 1985 because each year confidential report of the previous five years has to be taken note of. So, according to the petitioner, the then DNAI who was ill disposed towards him has barred his future once for all. For rectifying this misdeed on the part of the then DNAI he has approached this court.

(3.) For a proper understanding of the harm caused by the adverse report made by the then DNAI I would read that report, the remarks of the Reviewing Officer and the Minutes of the Selection Board. Adverse entry made by the Initiating Officer reads: