Supreme Court: Annual confidential report of employee communicated one day before meeting of Departmental promotion committee can not be considered for his promotion

Similarly so far as the ACR gradings for the year 2019-2020 is concerned, admittedly the same was communicated to the petitioner on 08.04.2021, just one day before the DPC met on 09.04.2021. The petitioner was having 15 days’ time to make the representation against the ACR grading for the year 2019-2020. Before the 15 days were over, the DPC met on 09.04.2021 and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion. The submission on behalf of the High Court that the other candidates who were also communicated the ACRs for the year 20192020 on 08.04.2021 submitted their representations on 09.04.2021 and therefore the petitioner also could have submitted the representation on 09.04.2021 like other candidates is concerned, it is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the petitioner was having 15 days’ time from 08.04.2021 to make a representation. Therefore, either the DPC could have been postponed or the ACR for the year 2019-2020 ought not to have been considered and the same ought to have been treated as uncommunicated ACR.

6.7 The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that as the ACR Grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was not communicated till the DPC met, the same is to be ignored and/ or be not relied upon for consideration of promotion. Similarly, the grading for the year 2019-2020 also is to be excluded and/or be not relied upon for consideration for promotion as the same was communicated on 08.04.2021 and the petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to make representation and before the representation could be made the DPC met on 09.04.2021 and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1209 OF 2021;

R.K. Jibanlata Devi Vs High Court of Manipur 

Coram: M.R. SHAH; J., C.T. RAVIKUMAR; J.

Author:M.R. SHAH, J.

Dated: February 24, 2023

Print Page

Whether uncommunicated adverse Annual confidential report of employee can be relied on for purpose of his promotion?

 The sole issue involved in this appeal is whether the uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), which are adverse to the Appellant, should have been relied upon for the purpose of consideration of the Appellant for promotion.

2. In view of the decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0481/2013 : (2013) 9 SCC 566, there cannot be any dispute on this aspect. This Court has settled the law that uncommunicated and adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon in the process.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2013

Decided On: 28.08.2018

 Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Vs.  Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 18 SCC 640

Print Page

Delhi HC issues directions for objectivity in ACR grading of judicial officers

This court is of opinion that to inject greater uniformity, objectivity and also some measure of transparency as well as predictability in ACR grading, the following should be kept in mind by the appraisal evaluation authorities:

(1) (i) The concerned judicial officer should be award of marks/points for a maximum of 100.

(ii) The 100 marks to be awarded shall be divided as follows:

(a) 20% shall be earmarked for quality of judgments (with sub-heads, if possible for clarity, analytical skills, and application of law etc). For appraisal of judgments, the committee/appraising judge should call for all the judgments in contested cases, and, depending on the jurisdiction or jurisdictions exercised by the judicial officer, select 5 randomly – having as great a spread, according to the period (i.e. in the one-year period) and jurisdictions as possible. Copies of such five judgments should be considered. The relevant attributes for consideration should be clarity, grasp of legal principles and their application.

(b) A maximum of 25% may be awarded for the institution/disposal ratio. Of this, 10 marks should be for quantum of achievement (i.e. whether disposals were greater than institutions, in a given year) and 15 maximum marks for the units achieved for the relevant period.

(c) A maximum of 20% may be awarded for the total number of final judgments delivered in contested matters. Such a benchmark would

interrogate and reveal in real terms the qualitative disposals, rather than relying on the achievement of statistical targets by judicial officer.

(d) Every judicial officer claiming disposal targets, based on a maximum of 10% may be awarded for timeliness, promptness in delivery of judgments, disposal of old cases, not taking leave or clubbing leave with vacations, etc. (depending on the propensity or tendency of judicial officers to do so).

(e) The balance 25% may be awarded by the appraising High Court judge/Committee on the basis of interaction/ inspection.

(2) Some allowance may be given wherever the judicial officer is assigned burdensome administrative tasks, such as membership of committees, co-ordination for events, conducting disciplinary enquiries if any of staff, etc. Likewise, where there are peculiarities of jurisdiction, such as where the judicial officer handles CBI courts, or other jurisdictions which have their special characteristics, separate criteria needs to be devised.

(3) No officer should ordinarily be subject to appraisal of any one judge or committee for more than two consecutive years. This would eliminate unconscious biases in favour and against the officers.

(4) Instructions may be also issued requesting all appraising judges/ committees to forward instances of outstanding judgments and extremely poor judgments of any given judicial officer, which they may come across in their normal judicial functioning to the High Court registry, with further instructions that such judgments may be placed before the concerned inspecting High Court judge/committee for due consideration and input for the ACR appraisal of that judicial officer.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment pronounced on: 21.08.2018

 W.P.(C) 3157/2015

SUJATA KOHLI  Vs REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

Print Page

Leading judgment of supreme court on annual confidential report of government servant

In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same, Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2006

Decided On: 23.04.2013

Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, JJ.

Citation:  (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 566 .

Print Page

Whether govt officer can be denied promotion on the basis of uncommunicated annual confidential report?

The
learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant
has rightly placed reliance on the case of Sukhdev
Singh (supra), wherein this Court has lucidly laid
down the law pertaining to communication of ACR. It
was held that if the ACR of the officer concerned
is to be used for the purpose of denying promotion,
then all such ACRs were required to be communicated
to him, to enable him to make a representation
against his adverse entries made in the ACRs.
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6532 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 1640 of 2014)

DALJIT SINGH GREWAL  Vs.STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation; AIR 2016  SC1260

Print Page

Whether Details of ACR reviewing officer should be disclosed in RTI?

The exemption is
from disclosure to a third party and not to the employee. In
fact, as explained in Dev Dutt (supra), if the intention of
making adverse entries, in the ACRs of an employee, is to
improve his performance, then the purpose is not achieved
by keeping the information secret from him. Unless adverse
entry is communicated to the employee and he is allowed to
explain his position, the exercise of getting improved his
performance would not be achieved. Cases of error, malice,
act of arbitrariness and unreasonableness cannot be ruled
out.
An employee, as a part of good governance, must
know who his reporting and accepting authority is. In fact,
it is not a trade secret at all. It is known to all within the
organization.
Disclosure of their names, in no manner,

would jeopardize their relationship either with the employee
or with the employer. There is no question of compromise
of any confidentiality in adopting such a practice. There is
no threat to life of any person. There is also no question of
invasion of privacy.
Information relating to posting, transfer and
32.
promotion of clerical staff of a Public Sector Undertaking

(Bank) does not pertain to any fiduciary relationship of the
bank vis-à-vis its employees, within the dictionary meaning
of the word “fiduciary”.
Also, such information cannot be
said to be held in trust by the employer on behalf of its
employees. (See: Canara Bank v. The Central Information
Commission, Delhi and another, AIR 2007 Kerala 225).
Information relating to third party, cannot be
33.
disclosed, even in public interest, without disclosing and
affording opportunity to the concerned. {See: Centre for
Development of Advanced Computing v. Brig. (Retd.) Ujjal
Dasgupta and another, AIR 2010 Delhi 132; and Arvind
Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer & another, AIR
2012 Delhi 29}.
34.
An
applicant
is
entitled
for
information,
prescribing the criteria and the marks allotted under
different heads for giving employment to public servants.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPs No.6675, 6676, 6677, 6678, 6679,
6680, 6681, 6682, 6683 & 6824 of 2013.

Date of Decision : March 1, 2014.

State Bank of India Vs
(In all the petitions)
The Central Information Commission &
Another (In all the petitions).
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.

Print Page

Relative grading of officer's annual confidential reports during promotion held not to be personal information

The CIC has consistently held that the ACRs of an officer is in the nature of  personal   information   and   can   be   disclosed   only   to   him   and   to   none   else.  However, in the present case, the Appellant has not sought the copies of the  ACRs. She has only wanted to know the manner in which the DPC evaluated  and assessed the individual ACRs of the officers and arrived at the grading in  each case. The disclosure of the final relative grading will not help; without the  entire chart showing the complete assessment of every officer, it will not be  clear how the officers have been assessed in a related matrix. It is without  doubt that the relative grading of the ACRs is an important input in the final  

decision of the DPC in recommending some officers and not recommending  some   others.   As   held   by   us   in   several   similar   cases   in   the   past,   in   any  examination   or   evaluation   process,   certain   details   about   the   successful   or  recommended candidates must be disclosed in order to ensure transparency in  the selection process. Since the relative grading of the ACRs is the basis for  recommending a certain officer for promotion, this needs to be disclosed just as  the caste certificate of a public servant needs to be disclosed since that serves  as the basis for his appointment to the government service. Therefore, this no  longer remains personal information and should be disclosed as it forms the  very basis for the promotion of an individual officer.

Central Information Commission

Dr.Madhu Khare vs Union Public Service Commission on 5 October, 2012

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

Print Page