Court Quashes Adverse Remarks in Civil Servant's ACR, Orders Reconsideration

Background

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.

Arguments

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.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

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.

Decision

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.