Analysis: Badrinath vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 3243]

Facts:

Badrinath vs Government of Tamil Nadu And others is rather a much convoluted and elaborated case in the Supreme Court of India pertaining to unfair treatment of the appellant, Mr. Badrinath, in matters regarding promotion at a government position. The facts of the case span over a period of forty-three years and a timeline has thus been assembled.

1. On 07/05/1957, the appellant, Mr. Badrinath was appointed in the Indian Administrative Services and was fixed on a Junior scale.
2. On 29/01/1962, five years after his selection, he was promoted to a Senior scale pay grade.
3. On 01/11/1972, after almost a decade he was then further promoted to Selection grade, although some of his juniors were promoted a year before him on 15/05/1971.
4. On 30/08/1976, he was to be promoted to super time scale, but a committee consisting of Mr. V. Kartikeyan, Chief Secretary to Government (3rd respondent), Mr. S. Viswanathan,  the then First Member, Board of Revenue and Mr. C.V.R. Panikar, the Second Secretary to Government suppressed his supersession because disciplinary actions were pending against him. Also, the Advisor of government advised to stop promotions for the 1957 list, which the appellant belonged to.
5. On 09/06/1977, a new Screening committee consisting of Sri C.V.R. Panikar (Chief Secretary) (4th respondent), Mr. S. Viswanathan, and Mr. K.V. Ramanathan was set up. Of the four disciplinary cases, one was deposed off. In one of the cases, a censure was recommended to the UPSC. And in the two pending cases, the Inquiry Officer recommended demotion to the Senior scale from Selection grade for two years. Hence, the Screening committee found the appellant unsuitable for promotion to super time scale on 28/06/1977.
6. But on the same date i.e. 28/06/1977, the Governor of Tamil Nadu dropped all the four charges during the President’s rule.
7. On 10/02/1978, the appellant, Mr. Badrinath made an appeal to the Central government against the supersession by the Screening Committee. Also on 29/06/1978, the Central Government directed the State government to include the positive aspects of the appellant’s work in his confidential report (CR).
8. On 05/06/1979, the Central government passed an order stating that the Screening Committee did not take into account the appellant’s confidential report (CR) as a whole but only on the disciplinary action taken up against him which was against the instruction given by Central government on 27/12/1975. The Central government hence ordered a remand and a set up of Joint Screening Committee.
9. On 23/01/1979, the appellant had filed a writ petition against Mr. V. Kartikeyan for publishing defamatory statements against him in the Indian Express which was then dismissed. The appellant further filed a writ appeal that continued to division bench and supreme court 24/12/1984 and 15/10/1987 respectively.
10. On 17/3/1979, State govt incorporated four positive aspects in the appellant’s CR on the direction of government dated 29/06/1978(refer to point 7) but did not include one. The same was signed by C.V.R. Panikar.
11. On 27/07/1979, the State government set up a Joint Screening Committee as per the remand order by the Central govt (refer point 8).
12. On 20/08/1979, the Joint Screening Committee was set up consisting of Sri V. Karthikeyan, Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu (3rd respondent), Sri K.S. Sivasubrahmanyam, First Member, Board of Revenue, and Sri S.P. Srinivasan, Second Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government of India’s representatives were Sri Maheswari Prasad, IAS (Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, New Delhi), and Sri P.R. Dubash, IAS (Establishment Officer, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Minister of Home Affairs, New Delhi).
13. On 30/08/1979, the Joint Screening Committee met and decided on the fourth disciplinary action regarding the expenditure of rupees 20,807 on furnishing the office without prior sanction. The other three disciplinary actions were dropped as per the Governor’s orders. The Committee assessed CR (till date 31/3/1977) in one cover and recommendation in another in two separate sealed covers. It also took into account work done during 1/4/1977 to 30/8/1979. All of this was to be opened after the fourth disciplinary action was decided.
14. On 08/04/1980, Mr. C.V.R. Panikar signed an order which stated the imposition of censure done by state govt with approval of UPSC on matters regarding the fourth action. The two sealed covers were then opened and the committee found the appellant unfit for promotion.
15. On 19/04/1980, Mr. V. Karthikeyan saw the recommendation report and decided it to forward it to S. Srinivasan as a court proceeding was ongoing against him. The committee’s recommendation was then accepted and the appellant was finally not found fit for promotion.
16. On 22/05/1980, the State govt intimated central govt about the events so that the appeal made by the appellant to the Central govt (refer point 7) may be dropped off.
17. On 29/5/1980, the four disciplinary actions expunged and some partially expunged.
18. On 11/6/1980, Central govt noted the censure and recommendation by state govt and rejected the appellant’s appeal.
19. On 17/7/1980, the same was signed by the minister.
20. On 7/8/1980, once it was signed it was notified to the State govt.
21. On 4/9/1980, finally, it was notified to the appellant.
22. Finally, in 1981, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against the order of the Central govt while seeking promotion on the same date as that of his junior’s promotion.
23. On 10/6/1987, writ petitions transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal were rejected.
24. The appeal was against the judgment of the Joint Screening Committee and its decision to deem the appellant unfit for promotion. They only considered old trivial and general comments on CR and not the positive aspects. The positive aspects were not even considered until Central govt told them to do so through an order. The basis of adverse remarks made should be dropped as per orders of the Governor but were not. The fourth action regarding unsanctioned expenditure was baseless because it was tp be dropped as soon as the Governor’s orders were passed; and although even if it was not, the expenditure was not wasteful and the main contention behind the accusation was that a prior sanction was not obtained. The fact that the appellant had asked senior officers and they allowed wasn’t considered. Thus, the orders of censure against the appellant were fallacious. Mala fide against Mr. V. Karthikeyan and Mr. C. V. R. Panikar was charged. Mr. V. Karthikeyan should not have been a part of the Joint Screening Committee because Mr. Badrinath had filed a writ appeal against Karthikeyan which was still pending. But since Mr. Karthikeyan was the Chief Secretary, he could not have ‘rescued’ himself from the proceedings, and hence the doctrine of ‘necessity’ would apply. Similar charges of mala fide intentions were put up on Mr. C.V.R. Panikar.

Issues

1. Whether the award of ‘censure’ in the fourth disciplinary case by the State Government was contrary to the directions of the Governor during the President’s Rule.
2. Whether the assessment of CR was done only based on old trivial and general comments and not the positive aspects.
3. Whether old remarks made before the appellant’s earlier promotion could be relied upon.
4. Whether Mr. Karthikeyan was liable under the ‘doctrine of necessity’.
5. Whether the actions of Mr. Karthikeyan and Mr. Panikar were mala fide.

Holding

The judgment taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the transfer application was dismissed by this appeal. The appellant in the writ petition implored to quash the decision of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms regarding his non-promotion and issued a writ of mandamus to Govt of Tamil Nadu to grant him a promotion to super time scale from the same date as that of his junior. Also, mala files were imputed on Mr. Karthikeyan and Mr. Panikar.

Rationale

1. The Court while deciding on the issue regarding the imposition of ‘censure’ on the appellant took into account the Wednesbury principle and principles of ‘proportionality’ while awarding the punishment to the appellant. The Governor under Article 356(1)(a) acts as an agent of the President and the orders are equivalent to be of the same value as of any other elected government. Hence, the ‘censure’ was out of jurisdiction as well as merit and was bad in law.
2. After a perusal of the assessment of the confidential report, the court recognized that the appellant had contributed to the State a lot, while the committee decided only on the adverse remarks which pertained to a time before his earlier promotions, which seem to lost have their ‘sting’. The disciplinary charges levied against the appellant lost their sanctity as soon as the Governor’s orders were passed. The Committee committed serious errors of law affecting the fundamental right to be considered ‘fairly’ for promotion under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. While deciding on the matters related to mala fide intentions by the respondents and the ‘doctrine of necessity’ the court recognized that when the statute requires the authority to take up quasi-judicial decisions, especially when the said authority, in the present case, being the respondents, disqualified in doing so forms the likelihood of bias. Also, there exists no such hard statute compelling the Chief Secretary to be a member of the Screening Committee, and hence the ‘doctrine of necessity’ collapses.