2015 (9) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Deprivation from promotion - Good remark in Annual Confidential Report instead of Outstanding or Very good - whether such a downgradation of Annual Confidential Report would amount to adverse remark and thus it would be required to be communicated or not - Held 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. - appellant has already been promoted. In view thereof, nothing more is required to be done. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. However, it will be open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position - Decision in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India 2008 (5) TMI 632 - SUPREME COURT followed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of downgrading of Annual Confidential Reports
2. Communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to public servants
3. Legal consequences of non-communication of ACR entries
4. Applicability of judgments in different cases

Interpretation of downgrading of Annual Confidential Reports:
The Supreme Court considered the matter following a referral order due to inconsistencies in previous decisions. The case involved the downgrading of an employee's Annual Confidential Report (ACR) from "Outstanding" to "Good," affecting his promotion prospects. The Court examined whether such downgrading constituted an adverse remark requiring communication to the employee. Reference was made to the U.P. Jal Nigam case, emphasizing the need for reasons behind downgrading and the importance of communication in maintaining the purpose of ACRs.

Communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report to public servants:
In subsequent cases like Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar, the Court emphasized the mandatory communication of all ACR entries to public servants within a reasonable period. Non-communication was deemed arbitrary and a violation of natural justice principles. The Court highlighted the significance of communication for employees' awareness, improvement, and the opportunity to challenge unjustified entries. It was held that even outstanding entries should be communicated to boost morale and ensure fairness.

Legal consequences of non-communication of ACR entries:
The Court underscored that non-communication of ACR entries could have civil consequences, impacting promotions and other benefits for public servants. Such non-communication was deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The decisions in Satya Narain Shukla and K.M. Mishra, taking a contrary view, were declared not to lay down good law.

Applicability of judgments in different cases:
The Court clarified that judgments like U.P. Jal Nigam were not limited to specific entities but established legal principles applicable across scenarios. The need for a larger Bench was emphasized to address inconsistencies and ensure uniform application of the law. The judgment in Dev Dutt was approved, emphasizing the transparency, fairness, and importance of communication in ACR processes.

In conclusion, the appellant's promotion rendered further action unnecessary, but the Court highlighted the right to make a representation for retrospective promotion based on the legal position outlined. An application for intervention was rejected, allowing the applicant to pursue legal remedies independently.