IMPORTANT POINT
Downgrading ACR without communication, authority and reason is illegal.
Same officer cannot be the reporting officer, reviewing officer and accepting officer.

Judgment

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No. 208 of 2013 (O&M) in Civil Writ Petition No. 5643 of 2004 whereby the High Court did not find any merit in the application and dismissed the same.

3. The brief facts of the case are mentioned below :-

The appellant joined the Punjab Home Guards Department as District Commander in the year 1993 after being selected through Punjab Public Service Commission under the Punjab Home Guard Class-II Rules, 1988. The work of the appellant was appreciated by the ADGP, Railways when a big tragedy on the railway tracks was averted as a result of his efforts. His work and conduct was considered as excellent. The dispute in the instant case arose when he received a letter dated 28.06.2000, wherein the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 1.07.1999 to 31.03.2000 rated his performance as ‘average’. The D.G.P-cum-Commandant General had written the following remarks:

“An mediocre officer, whose performance was barely satisfactory. His own officers intrigue and directly make unfounded allegations. This work environment, he has not been able to change.”

4. The said assessment of his performance by the Deputy Commandant General-cum-Deputy Director, Civil Defence and the D.G.P-cum-Commandant General, Home Guards & Director Civil Defence led the appellant to place a representation dated 07.07.2000 before the DGP-cum-Commandant General, Home Guards and Director Civil Defence, Punjab- respondent No.5, requesting the supply of documents on the basis of which his conduct and diligence was graded as ‘average’. But no satisfactory response was received by the appellant despite having been made reminder representations dated 18.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 for supply of the said documents. On 29.12.2000, Instructions were issued by the Department of Personnel, State Government, Punjab whereby a ‘benchmark system’ was introduced for promotion to Group-A and Group-B posts.

5. On 15.03.2001, the appellant submitted a detailed representation to the Secretary, Personnel, Punjab, Civil Secretariat-respondent No.3 herein, requesting him to re-consider the said Instructions on the ground that the same were violative of principles of natural justice. He also stated in the representation that the recording of adverse entries in the ACR must be conveyed to the concerned officers so as to enable them to improve their work accordingly. On 07.05.2001, the appellant received a letter from the Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, informing him that his representations dated 18.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 to the Government had been considered and rejected.

6. The appellant again made a representation on 31.05.2001 to the then Principal Secretary, Department of Home and Justice, requesting that the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 1999-2000 be expunged so that he could be promoted to the post of Battalion Commander.

7. On 30.06.2001, the appellant became eligible for promotion to the post of Battalion Commander after completion of 8 years of service as per Punjab Home Guard Class-I Rules, 1988. Rule 8(2) of the Rules provides that the District Commanders having 8 years of experience are entitled to promotion to the post of Battalion Commander on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and that no person could claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone.

8. Ultimately, having received no satisfactory response from the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 despite making several representations, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 70 of 2001 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), challenging the adverse entries made in his ACR for the year 1999-2000.

9. Meanwhile, the representation of the appellant was rejected by respondent No. 4 by way of a non-speaking order on