judgement
Subject : Administrative Law - Civil Service Regulations
Description :
In this case, a civil servant challenged the manner in which adverse remarks were entered into his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2017-2018, which resulted in him being deprived of a promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The petitioner also challenged the order rejecting his appeal to expunge the adverse remarks.
The petitioner argued that the adverse remarks were recorded by the Reporting Authority (Respondent No. 7) without following the required procedures, such as obtaining a special report from the Commissioner of Division and the President of the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner also alleged that the adverse remarks were recorded due to malice, as the Reporting Authority had a personal grievance against the petitioner.
The respondent authorities argued that the online disclosure of the ACR to the petitioner was done as per the relevant rules and that the Appellate Authority had duly considered the matter before rejecting the petitioner's appeal.
The court found that the Reporting Authority had not followed the required procedures in recording the adverse remarks, as it had not obtained the necessary reports from the Commissioner of Division and the President of the Zilla Parishad. The court also noted that the Appellate Authority had not adequately considered the relevant facts and notifications while rejecting the petitioner's appeal.
However, the court did not find any evidence to establish malice on the part of the Reporting Authority. The court held that the communication of the adverse remarks to the petitioner, though not done by the Reviewing Authority as required, was eventually done within the relevant period.
The court set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2021 and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner by taking into consideration the applicable rules and office memorandums/notifications. The court also ordered the respondent authorities to expunge or ignore the adverse remarks entered into the petitioner's ACR for the year 2017-18 and to grant any consequential relief as may be permissible under the law.
#CivilServiceReform #AnnualConfidentialReport #AdverseRemarks #GauhatiHighCourt
Supreme Court Rules Criminal Courts Must Not Act As Recovery Agents For Disputed Dues
27 Jul 2026
Rajya Sabha Bill Seeks To Criminalize Vande Mataram Disruption Under The National Honour Act
27 Jul 2026
Will Competitive Exams Deplete Delhi District Courts of Judges During Crucial Trial Proceedings This Year?
27 Jul 2026
Bombay High Court Adjourns Defamation Case Involving Union Minister Nitin Gadkari And Online Media Platforms
28 Jul 2026
Rajasthan High Court Directs State to Form Separate Wings for Crime Investigation and Security
28 Jul 2026
Gujarat High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of CGST Section 16 2 c Denying Unpaid Input Tax
28 Jul 2026
Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues New Guidelines For Legal Aid Defense Counsel System
28 Jul 2026
Government Introduces Public Examinations Amendment Bill 2026 In Lok Sabha To Curb Exam Paper Leaks
28 Jul 2026
Should Delhi High Court Increase Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Courts to ₹10 Crore Threshold?
28 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.