The Supreme Court has ruled that adverse entries in an officer’s service record prior to a previous promotion cannot be relied upon for denying further promotion unless they pertain to dishonesty or lack of integrity. The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi in Raju Narayanaswamy vs. State of Kerala & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025.
Background
The appellant, Raju Narayanaswamy, an IAS officer of the 1991 Kerala cadre, had challenged the denial of his promotion to the Chief Secretary grade. Though promoted to the grade of Principal Secretary with effect from June 1, 2016, he was found unfit for the Apex Scale during a Screening Committee meeting held on December 14, 2020. The Committee noted that over 90% of his ACRs were not available and also cited unsatisfactory performance based on available records.
Despite this, he was assessed as a “special case.” The Committee ultimately concluded that the appellant’s performance was “below noteworthy” and that his name was not fit for inclusion in the promotion panel.
Appellate and Review Proceedings
The Council of Ministers approved the Screening Committee’s findings. Narayanaswamy submitted a representation for review, which was rejected by a Review Committee on April 27, 2021. The Review Committee cited poor leadership and interpersonal skills, long gaps in ACR availability, and unauthorised absence from duty for about a year (from March 19, 2019, to March 16, 2020). The said period was subsequently regularised as ‘non-duty’.
Further litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Kerala High Court also did not yield relief. The High Court granted the appellant liberty to approach authorities for completion of missing ACRs and to seek reconsideration of his promotion.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court emphasised that while the Committee is entitled to review the entire service record of an officer being considered for the highest echelons of service, entries made prior to a previous promotion cannot be the sole basis for denial of future promotion unless they relate to dishonesty or lack of integrity.
Referring to the precedent in Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 395, the Court reiterated:
“Adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of service can be taken into consideration while promoting an officer or while passing an order of compulsory retirement. But the weight which must be attached to the adverse remarks depends upon certain sound principles of fairness.”
It further stated:
“If the adverse remarks relate to a period prior to an earlier promotion they must be treated as having lost their sting and as weak material, subject however to the rider that if they related to dishonesty or lack of integrity they can be considered to have not lost their strength fully so as to be ignored altogether.”
The Bench held that the Review Committee did not rely solely on old entries but also on recent conduct, including unauthorised absence and a continuing pattern of undisciplined behaviour.
Conclusion
The Court found no procedural irregularity or mala fides in the Committee’s evaluation. Since the appellant’s promotion had been considered in 2021 and 2022 and rejected both times, and in light of the High Court’s earlier direction to allow reconsideration upon availability of 90% ACRs, the Supreme Court declined to interfere. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Citation: Raju Narayanaswamy vs. State of Kerala & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025
