“Revival of ‘Washed-Off’ Adverse Entries when Post-Promotion Misconduct Persists”
Commentary on Supreme Court Decision in
Raju Narayana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2025 INSC 563)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Raju Narayana Swamy v. State of Kerala addresses the delicate balance between individual brilliance and institutional discipline in determining promotions to the highest civil-service rank—Chief Secretary (Apex Scale of the Indian Administrative Service).

The appellant, Dr. Raju Narayana Swamy, an IAS officer of the 1991 batch with an enviable academic record, challenged the State’s refusal to empanel him for promotion. His core grievance was that the Screening and subsequent Review Committees relied on:

• Adverse remarks recorded before his earlier promotion in 2016 (which he claimed had been “washed-off”); and
• Extra-record materials such as a fact-finding report and CAT observations.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, articulating a nuanced rule: while adverse entries preceding an earlier promotion generally lose their “sting,” they can lawfully revive and be weighed as “corroborative but weak material” if post-promotion conduct displays a similar pattern of indiscipline or poor leadership. The ruling refines the “washed-off theory” and delineates the latitude of Screening/Review Committees in top-tier IAS promotions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Court upheld the decisions of the Screening Committee (2020) and the Review Committee (2021) that found the appellant “not fit” for inclusion in the Chief Secretary panel.
2. It ruled that:
   • Committees may consider an officer’s entire service record for Apex Scale promotion.
   • Pre-promotion adverse entries ordinarily fade (“washed-off”), but regain relevance where subsequent records exhibit the same deficiencies.
   • Lack of 90 % Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) does not ipso facto vitiate consideration if the officer is assessed as a special case.
   • The Review Committee did not import “fresh” grounds; it merely elaborated on the Screening Committee’s rationale.
   • No benchmark score is mandatory under the governing Guidelines; a binary “Fit/Unfit” grading suffices.
3. The appeal was dismissed; the appellant retains the liberty already afforded by the High Court to have 90 % of his ACRs generated and seek reconsideration in future years.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and their Influence

The Court drew chiefly on four strands of case-law:

1. Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa (1989) 4 SCC 664; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State Of Jharkhand (2010) 10 SCC 693; Shyam Deo Singh (2014) 4 SCC 773 – These decisions discuss the “washed-off theory” in the context of compulsory retirement, holding that pre-promotion adverse entries normally lose efficacy.
2. Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 8 SCC 395 – The leading authority on the relevance of past ACRs in promotions. Paragraph 58 lays down six principles, notably that earlier adverse entries are “weak material” unless they concern integrity or are mirrored in later conduct.
3. Wednesbury principles (from UK case-law, 1948) – Adopted in Indian jurisprudence to test administrative decisions for unreasonableness.

The Court synthesised these cases, reaffirming Badrinath, and extended its logic: if post-promotion records echo earlier deficiencies, the older entries are rejuvenated and lawfully influence the promotion decision.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Entire Service Record is Relevant for Apex Scale
   Promotion to Chief Secretary affects State governance at the highest level; hence, a holistic view of integrity, leadership, and discipline is justified. The Guidelines themselves authorise evaluation of the full record.
2. Refinement of the Washed-Off Theory
   Using Badrinath, the Court held:
   • Adverse remarks prior to the last promotion ordinarily fade.
   • However, they revive if the officer’s subsequent record corroborates a continuing pattern of misconduct.
   • This prevents a promotion system from being “blind” to serial indiscipline masked by isolated periods of good grading.
3. No Procedural Illegality in Considering Additional Material
   The appellant claimed the Review Committee introduced extraneous factors. The Court disagreed, noting:
   • The Committee merely amplified—not supplanted—the Screening Committee’s reasons.
   • Fact-finding reports, absence records, and CAT observations are part of the officer’s overall service dossier.
4. 90 % ACR Requirement is Directory, Not Mandatory
   Clause 4.1 of the Guidelines discourages convening a meeting without 90 % ACR availability, but also enables Committees to consider available reports in special cases. The appellant thus cannot rely on the deficit as a shield when he was in fact considered.
5. Binary “Fit/Unfit” Grading is Valid
   Clause 7.2 abolishes numerical benchmarks; hence, absence of a scoring matrix is not arbitrary.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Guidance for Promotion Committees: Clarifies that when assessing apex promotions, Committees may revisit pre-promotion adverse material if post-promotion behaviour suggests continuity.
• Limiting Strategic Non-Filing of ACRs: Officers cannot withhold self-appraisals to claim procedural protection; Committees can still assess them “special-case” on existing material.
• Strengthening Discipline at the Top: Emphasises collective leadership qualities (collegiality, integrity, availability) over mere academic brilliance.
• Future Litigation: Courts reviewing non-promotion challenges will likely apply this two-step test—(i) whether past adverse entries are remote, and (ii) whether similar post-promotion conduct exists—before granting relief.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

ACR / PAR

Annual Confidential Report / Performance Appraisal Report – yearly performance assessments of civil servants, key to promotions.

Washed-Off Theory

Doctrine that adverse entries prior to an officer’s last promotion are presumed to have lost their adverse effect for subsequent promotions, unless revived.

Screening Committee vs. Review Committee

Screening Committee prepares the initial promotion panel; Review Committee reassesses the list upon representation, but only for procedural errors or overlooked material.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

A decision is unreasonable if no sensible person could have reached it; used to judge administrative discretion.

Fit/Unfit Model

Promotion method where no numerical benchmark exists; officers are simply adjudged suitable or not.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in a meticulous reaffirmation and refinement of the “washed-off theory,” has held that while prior adverse entries lose potency after a promotion, they revive when the officer’s subsequent record re-exposes the same flaws. This decision empowers Selection Committees to preserve the integrity and collegial ethos expected at the pinnacle of the IAS, without being shackled by an overly technical reading of promotion guidelines. It cautions high-achieving officers that brilliance cannot compensate for continual indiscipline, and it signals to administrators and courts alike a balanced approach to service-record assessment—respectful of rights, yet mindful of public trust in senior civil-service leadership.