Back
M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
G. R. Meghwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 740 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal allowing the O.A. No. 430 of 2011 by directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess his suitability for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR of 2007-2008, Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-
2.1 The respondent herein, who belonged to the cadre of Indian Telecom Group A was sent on deputation to BSNL. He was posted as Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Sikar. His ACR grading was “Very Good” for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. However, for the year 2007-2008, his ACR grading was only “Good”. The below benchmark grading for the year 2007-2008 was communicated to him vide let
ACR – All entries in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within reasonable period so that he can make a representation for his upgradation despite there be no rule or government order....
The court holds that downgrading public servants' ACRs requires substantial reasoning and fairness; previous good performance must not be overshadowed by isolated adverse remarks without justificatio....
Uncommunicated ACR entries violate the right to fair representation under Article 14 of the Constitution, necessitating communication of all gradings to public servants for promotion processes.
Uncommunicated below benchmark ACRs must be ignored in ACP assessment like promotions, but validly communicated and upheld adverse remarks justify denying ACP despite subsequent MACP grants.
Communication of aCRs within a reasonable period is crucial for fairness and transparency in public administration, as established in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh.
Timely communication of adverse ACRs is essential for fair evaluation and promotion of public servants; delays violate natural justice principles.
Non-communication of below benchmark grading in ACR/APAR is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The rejection of representation against below benchmark grading must be....
No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as the petitioner was considered for promotion. However, he was not promoted due to the petitioner not attaining the bench mark.
Non-communication of adverse ACR within the stipulated time period can adversely affect a government servant's career and should not form the basis for denying benefits, as established by legal princ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
