The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the curtailment of tenure of an ICAR official, holding that the appellant had no ‘enforceable right’ to complete the full five-year term of appointment.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, which had affirmed the action of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in curtailing the appellant’s tenure and reverting him to his earlier post.
The Court held that the terms of appointment expressly permitted curtailment of tenure “by issuing further orders,” and therefore, the appellant could not claim a vested right to continue for the full duration. It clarified that such administrative action is subject to limited judicial review, confined to examining whether the decision is “arbitrary or irrational, tainted by mala fides, or colourable in nature.”
Rejecting the contention that the reversion was punitive, the Court observed that the impugned order was “not punitive per se” and amounted to a routine administrative decision. It reiterated that transfer or reversion is ordinarily an “incidence of service” and does not constitute punishment in itself.
On the issue of adverse Annual Assessment Reports (AARs), the Court held that remarks such as “unsatisfactory” and “below average” do not constitute stigma beyond an assessment of unsuitability. It found that the appellant had been given an opportunity to represent against the AARs, and no “real consequential prejudice” was demonstrated.
The Court also rejected allegations of mala fides and retaliation arising from the appellant’s claims of having exposed irregularities, holding that such allegations must be supported by “clear, cogent and specific material” and cannot be inferred from surrounding circumstances.
Further, it held that Article 311 of the Constitution was not applicable, as ICAR is an autonomous society governed by its own rules and bye-laws, and not a civil post under the Union or State.
Finding no infirmity in the administrative action or the concurrent findings of the lower fora, the Court dismissed the appeals.