Review Committee May Consider Entire Service Record; Pre‑promotion Adverse ACRs Lose Their Sting Unless They Implicate Dishonesty, Says Supreme Court

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal by a seniormost 1991‑batch IAS officer challenging the decision of a Review Committee and the High Court upholding non‑recommendation of his promotion to the Chief Secretary grade. The primary issue concerned whether the Screening and Review Committees could have regard to adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs/PARs) predating the officer’s earlier promotion and whether those materials were relied upon improperly in denying promotion.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that selection for the Apex grade required examination of the officer’s entire service record and that adverse entries prior to an earlier promotion generally “lose their sting” and become “weak material” unless they relate to dishonesty or lack of integrity. The Court recorded that the Review Committee was entitled to amplify the rationale given by the Screening Committee after considering submissions and available material, and it found no mala fide or Wednesbury‑unreasonable conduct. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “the Committee was entitled to consider the entire service record of the appellant while considering him for promotion to the highest echelons of civil service. But the adverse entries prior to his earlier promotion would lose their sting and be treated as ‘weak material’ unless they relate to dishonesty and lack of integrity.” The Court also reproduced the Screening Committee’s finding that “the performance of the officer has been below noteworthy over the years” and quoted the Review Committee’s note that “there have been at least five instances where the officer has been rated poorly by the officials in the chain of command.”

Background

The appellant, promoted to Principal Secretary in June 2016, sought elevation to the Chief Secretary grade under Clause VI of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 and the accompanying Guidelines for Screening Committees. The Guidelines required at least 90% up‑to‑date ACRs before placing a proposal, but permitted consideration of “available ACRs” and assessment of equal years for all candidates; the appellant was considered as a “special case” despite missing roughly five years of ACRs. The Screening Committee (14.12.2020) found the appellant “not fit to be included in the panel for promotion” and recorded unsatisfactory gradings and that his “performance … has been below noteworthy over the years.” The Council of Ministers approved that decision.

The appellant sought review under Clause 23. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Review Committee to decide his representation. After a hearing, the Review Committee on 27.04.2021 rejected the review, noting adverse ratings, instances of absence from important meetings, a period of unauthorised absence from 19.03.2019 to 17.03.2020 treated as ‘non‑duty’, and findings in a fact‑finding report that reflected lack of interpersonal skills. CAT and thereafter the High Court dismissed challenges; the High Court observed that 90% of the ACRs were not available and granted liberty to the appellant to approach authorities for preparation/generation of missing ACRs and for reconsideration.

The appellant argued that the Review Committee impermissibly relied on pre‑2016 adverse entries that had been “washed off” by promotion and on extraneous, uncommunicated materials including a fact‑finding report and earlier CAT observations. The State countered that promotion to Chief Secretary required scrutiny of the full service record, that post‑2016 records were limited, and that the unauthorised absence and other conduct justified denial. The appellant relied on precedents addressing the weight of prior ACR entries; the Court treated Badrinath and other decisions as guiding principles and applied them to hold that pre‑promotion adverse remarks generally weaken with time except where they reflect dishonesty or lack of integrity. The Court found on facts that the Review Committee’s consideration of the entire record, including the unauthorised absence and continuing concerns about discipline and collegiality, did not amount to arbitrariness or mala fides. The appeal was dismissed. The High Court’s liberty for the appellant to seek generation of missing ACRs and fresh consideration remained available.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3215 OF 2025 (2025 INSC 563) Case Title: Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Basant, Senior Counsel; Mr. Subhash Chandran, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Giri, Senior Counsel; Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Senior Counsel