S TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * *

(2.) The above Rules (Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules 1954) and particularly Rule 5 make it clear that the confidential report is mooted for the purpose of assessing the four attributes of a public service namely his performance his character his conduct and his qualities. As observed during the course of the period under report from the very nature of things also these are four conceivable heads under which an officers performance can be assessed and adjudged. If an Officer is to be adjudged meritorious or otherwise it would be on the basis of these four broad factors and none other. It is in consonance with common sense also. If no arbitrariness is to be allowed to have its play if personal likes and dislikes in the assessment of the merit or otherwise of a public officer are to be avoided the assessment of an Officers worth has to be based on these four well-known criteria. Whoever certifies a public servant as a man of good performance character conduct and qualities has to do so on the basis of some objective material. Similarly if he devalues him for the purpose of judging his suitability for the post or for some higher post or grades that also ordinarily would be by these very yardsticks. If there is any attempt to judge a person on the criteria other than these four well-known conceivably reasonable data that exercise can be brandished as arbitrary capricious and therefore violative of the rule of law which in its turn is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India read with Art. 16 with specific reference to the public service. It is in the light of these settled legal position that the cases are to be viewed by the concerned authorities. We are not oblivious of the fact that this High Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of a super-administrator. Its jurisdiction is highly hedged and it is confined to watching the confinement by the public authorities to the limits of law or rather keeping watch over the transgression of those limits. If in a given set of circumstances the administrative decision including the assessment of the merits or otherwise of the public servant can be possibly reasonably true. this High Court has no power to interfere even though the High Court on its own may be inclined to take a different view of the matter. Being conscious of these limits on our Powers though proverbially stated to be very wide we are examining this case only from that angle and no further. ... ... ... ... ...

(3.) A question may arise whether not yet fit is an adverse remark. As emphasised by us earlier a mans merits or de-merits are to be judged on the basis of four factors as per the Rules already referred to by us the four factors being (i) the performance of his duties (ii) his overall general character: (iii) his conduct in the discharge of his duties vis-a-vis his subordinate officers; and (iv) the quality of his performance. If these are found to be above normal by the officers who had the direct contact with the petitioner flinging of such remarks without any factual foundation by a man like the Chief Secretary can hardly be countenanced in a society governed by the rule of law and not by caprice. It cannot do to say that the Chief Secretary while reviewing or countersigning is not bound to base his conclusions on those four factors. If such a bald exposition is to be entertained it would amount to putting a seal of approval on rank arbitrariness caprice whim or prejudices.