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 adverse annual confidential report can be challenged on ground that reviewing officer has given remark belatedly?

 Thus, the Tribunal has recorded that the Reviewing Officer for the year 2001-02 has written her remarks 2 years and 2 months after Reporting Officer has written his remarks. For the year 2002-03, remark have been written by the Reviewing Officer after a gap of 1 year and 5 months and for the year 2003-04, remarks are written after Smt. Bhave left the department of Atomic Energy. The Tribunal has found that notwithstanding the ambiguity of date of writing of remarks by the Reviewing Officer the remarks still show that the Reviewing Officer has not taken pains to record detailed reasons for downgrading ACRs of the respondent from 'Very Good' to 'Average' (2 levels below). In fact the OM dated 23/09/1985 has prescribed the time schedule for preparation of the confidential report. The Reviewing Officer has far exceeded this time schedule. Having gone through the reasoning of the Tribunal, we do not find that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal about the adverse remarks and below-benchmark grading recorded by the Reviewing Officer after inordinate and unexplained delay is in any manner perverse or unwarranted. 

Reliance on these gradings of the Reviewing Officer by the petitioners for denial of promotion to the respondent is therefore unjustified.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 953 of 2017

Decided On: 10.01.2018

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vikas Chand Chaturvedi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Tahilramani, Actg. C.J. and M.S. Karnik, J.

Citation: 2018(2) MhLJ 403

Print Page

When annual confidential report of govt servant should not be downgraded?

 He also mentioned in the representation that he
was shocked to find that his ACR for the period
2001-2002 was downgraded by respondent No. 4
without assigning any reason or affording an
opportunity of being heard. As per the departmental
procedure, Rules and Instructions, the then
Principal Secretary, Home who has not seen the work
and conduct of the appellant, could not have
downgraded his performance by making an adverse
entry in his ACR. However, no action was taken on

this representation made by him.
 A perusal of the ACR for the period 2000-2001
reveals that though the general remarks stated that
“He is very good and responsible officer”
respondent No. 4 had given a grade which read, “I
agree. An average officer”. The said entry shows
that he had agreed to all the remarks of the ACR
given in respect of columns 1 to 18 for that year
by the Competent Accepting Authority, but he
further stated assessed the officer to be an
‘average’ officer without assigning any reason
whatsoever apart from his competence to make such
adverse entries. The overall grading of the ACR is
based upon the observations made by the Reporting
Authority, Reviewing Authority and final Accepting
Authority. As per the entries made by the
respondent No. 4, he had agreed to the overall
grading as given by the Accepting Authority. In
such a case, he could not have downgraded the
overall grading in the ACR by using the words “an
average officer”. Further, if the comments made on
20.05.2004 by the respondent No. 4 on the ACR for
the year 2000-2001 are being sought to justify the
stand of denial of promotion to the appellant to
the post in question, then the clarification needs
to take effect from that date, i.e 20.05.2004. In
such a case, the appellant was to be assigned 3
marks as per the instructions for the year 2003,
when he was ignored for the promotion for the first
time.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6532 OF 2015

DALJIT SINGH GREWAL …
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Citation;(2015)9 SCC680

Print Page