2007 (2) TMI 221 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the High Court has erred in its failure/omission to take into consideration the government instructions for regulating recording of ACR which provide for only communication of adverse remarks in the ACRs? Held that - From the submissions made and the materials on record, we are satisfied that the methodology which has been evolved and included in the Regulations for grading the eligible officers have been religiously followed by the Selection Committee which did not call for any interference by the Tribunal. The High Court has merely followed the decision of the Tribunal without independently applying its mind to the facts involved. Whether the High Court has erred in its failure/omission to take into consideration the government instructions for regulating recording of ACR which provide for only communication of adverse remarks in the ACRs. Civil Appeal stands allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority and promotion of officers in the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service.
2. Consideration and communication of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
3. Judicial review of DPC proceedings and the impact of downgrading ACRs without communication.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority and Promotion of Officers:
The primary issue revolves around the seniority and promotion of officers within the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service. The first respondent contested the seniority assigned to him, arguing that his ACRs for 1994-1995 were not properly graded or considered by the DPC. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's orders and ACRs for 1992-1993, 1993-1994, and 1994-1995, directing fresh consideration of the respondent's seniority. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the DPC's decision, stating that the DPC followed prescribed norms and made recommendations based on merit.

2. Consideration and Communication of ACRs:
The respondent argued that his ACRs were downgraded from 'outstanding' to 'very good' without proper communication or reasons. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, stating that it is not necessary to communicate non-adverse remarks. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that any element of adverse reflection in ACRs should be communicated. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that since the respondent's ACRs met the 'above average' benchmark, there was no requirement to communicate the entries. The Court emphasized that the DPC had the discretion to make its own assessment based on the entries in the ACRs.

3. Judicial Review of DPC Proceedings:
The Supreme Court highlighted that judicial review of DPC proceedings is limited and should not interfere unless there is a gross violation of rules or mis-grading of confidential reports. The Court noted that the DPC made an overall assessment of the relevant confidential reports and applied its discretion in determining the comparative merit of eligible officers. The Court found no justification for the High Court's interference, stating that the DPC followed the standing government instructions and rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court upheld the DPC's discretion in evaluating ACRs and determining seniority based on merit. The decision reaffirms the principle that only adverse entries in ACRs need to be communicated and that judicial review of DPC proceedings should be limited to cases of gross violations or mis-grading. The judgment underscores the importance of following established norms and procedures in promotion and seniority matters within the civil services.

← Previous Next →