1. Validity of Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual regarding the appointment of Deputy Commissioner as Reporting Authority for Superintendent of Police under the Assam Police Act, 2007. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
The State of Assam and Others – Appellants
Versus
Binod Kumar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1933 of 2023
Decided On : 18-01-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nalin Kohli, AAG Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. L.Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Pal, Adv. Ms. Namrata Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv. Mr. Aniket Seth, Adv. Ms. Snehil Sonam, Adv. Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nalin Kohli, AAG Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. L.Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Pal, Adv. Ms. Namrata Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv. Mr. Aniket Seth, Adv. Ms. Snehil Sonam, Adv. Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) IPS Officers, being members of an All India Service, would be amenable to 2007 Rules – Merely because they are deployed/deputed to work in State of Assam, IPS Officers cannot be denied benefit of All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 which would be applicable across board to their ilk serving all over country – It would be incorrect to castigate such IPS Officers as insisting upon a ‘Reporting Authority’ of their choice.
(2) Statutory provision has to be considered first and foremost as a norm of current legal system whence it takes force.
Headnote:
(A) Interpretation of Statute – Statutory provision has to be considered first and foremost as a norm of current legal system whence it takes force, as it has a legal existence independent of historical contingencies of its promulgation and should be interpreted in light of its place within system of legal norms currently in force – Words used in a statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and it is only when they are capable of two constructions that question of giving effect to policy or object of legislation can legitimately arise. (Paras 12 and 17)
(B) All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 [Replaced by All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007] – Rules 2(e), 2(f) and 2(a) – Assam Police Act, 2007 – Section 14(2) and Rule 63(iii) of Assam Police Manual – Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers – Reporting Authority – IPS Officers, being members of an All India Service, would be amenable to 2007 Rules – Merely because they are deployed/deputed to work in State of Assam, IPS Officers cannot be denied benefit of 2007 Rules which would be applicable across board to their ilk serving all over country – It would be incorrect to castigate such IPS Officers as insisting upon a ‘Reporting Authority’ of their choice – They are merely seeking parity with their kind working in other parts of country – There is no discernible conflict or contradiction between definitions of ‘Reporting Authority’ and ‘Reviewing Authority’ in 1970 Rules, post 1987, and in 2007 Rules – Reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities should be from within same service or department – Deputy Commissioner has no authority to interfere with internal organization and discipline of police force – When liberty has been given to SP to disagree with Deputy Commissioner on any point relating to police administration and seek resolution of such difference of opinion through Commissioner and, thereafter, Inspector General of Police, it would be a parody to subject performance assessment of such a SP to same Deputy Commissioner with whom he/she had disagreed – Such an ACR/APAR cannot be taken to be impartial and objective, once it is preceded by a difference of opinion between SP and Deputy Commissioner, leading to a reference being made to higher authorities – Such a situation must necessarily be avoided to maintain sanctity of assessment process – Judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
By impugned Judgment Gauhati High Court allowed W.P(C). No.4752 of 2015 and held Rule 63(iii) of Assam Police Manual invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of Assam Police Act, 2007. This judgment is called in question by State of Assam and its officials in the Home Department. Core controversy in this case is as to who should be ‘Reporting Authority’ to initiate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers working as District Superintendents of Police (SPs) in State of Assam.
Findings of Court:
Applications for permission to file additional documents are allowed. Other pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Act Referred
ALL INDIA SERVICES CONFIDENTIAL ROLLS RULES: R.2(e)
ASSAM POLICE ACT: S.14(2)
ASSAM POLICE MANUAL: R.63(iii)
ASSAM POLICE ACT: S.14(2)
ASSAM POLICE MANUAL: R.63(iii)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner's general control over the Superintendent of Police justifies their role as Reporting Authority despite prohibitions on interfering in internal police organization and discipline. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The Deputy Commissioner lacks authority over internal police organization; reporting and reviewing authorities must belong to the same service to ensure objective performance appraisal. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 25 )
4. Reporting and reviewing authorities must belong to the same service or department; designating a non-departmental officer as Reporting Authority violates prohibitions against interfering in internal police organization. (Para 16 , 19 , 26 )
5. Appeal dismissed and the High Court judgment invalidating the rule is upheld. (Para 27 )
6. Can a Deputy Commissioner act as the Reporting Authority for a Superintendent of Police's performance appraisal?
No. Under the Assam Police Act, 2007, the Deputy Commissioner cannot interfere in the internal organization and discipline of the police force. Furthermore, the All India Services Rules imply that reporting and reviewing authorities must belong to the same service or department. (Para 16 , 20 , 26 )
7. How should Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 be interpreted together?
They must be harmoniously construed. While Section 14(1) vests the Deputy Commissioner with general control and direction over the Superintendent of Police, Section 14(2) restricts this power by prohibiting interference in the internal organization and discipline of the police force. (Para 20 )
8. What is the requirement for the relationship between a Reporting Authority and a Reviewing Authority under the All India Services Rules?
The Reviewing Authority is defined as the authority supervising the performance of the Reporting Authority. This implies that both the Reporting and Reviewing authorities must belong to the same service or department to maintain a proper supervisory hierarchy. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 )
9. Does the Deputy Commissioner's role in maintaining law and order justify their role as the sole Reporting Authority for an SP?
No. Performance appraisal for IPS officers covers twenty different domains; 'Law and Order' is only one. The Deputy Commissioner is only competent to assess that single domain, not the overall performance of the Superintendent of Police. (Para 25 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. By judgment dated 05.12.2017, the Gauhati High Court allowed W.P. (C) No. 4752 of 2015 and held Rule 63(iii) of the ASSAM POLICE MANUAL invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007. This judgment is called in question by the State of Assam and its officials in the Home Department.
2. While ordering notice on 07.01.2019, this Court directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the appellants on the basis of the impugned judgment. On 21.03.2023, this Court issued notice to the learned Attorney General for India, being of the opinion that his presence was necessary for effective adjudication of this appeal.
3. The core controversy in this case is as to who should be the ‘Reporting Authority’ to initiate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers working as District Superintendents of Police (SPs) in the State of Assam. More particularly, the issue is whether Rule 63(iii) of the ASSAM POLICE MANUAL (for brevity, ‘the Manual’), which prescribes that such assessment should be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, as the ‘Reporting Authority’ is lawful. The specific ground successfully urged before the High Court by the respondents herein, viz. IPS Officers working as SPs in the State of Assam, is that this Rule is violative of Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 (for brevity ‘the Act of 2007’).
4. It would be apposite at this stage to note the tone and tenor of the relevant statutory provisions. Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, in the context of initiation of the ACR/APAR of a SP of a district, reads as follows:
“(iii) Superintendent of Police - the report should be initiated by Deputy Commissioner, reviewed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police i/c Range and sent to the Commissioner of Division. The Commissioner of Division will send the same with his opinion to the Inspector General of Police for acceptance.
The Inspector General of Police shall refer the report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, S.B. for recording his remarks regarding performance of the Superintendent of Police of the District in subjects pertaining to the S.B.”
Section 14 of the Act of 2007 reads thus:
“14. Relationship of Superintendent of Police with District Magistrates:
(1) The administration of the Police throughout the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate is vested in the Superintendent of Police under the general control and direction of the Deputy Commissioner as District Magistrate. The latter is responsible for keeping peace and maintenance of law and order in a district and may employ the police as he thinks best for the purpose.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner as District (sic.) Magistrate has however, no authority to interfere in the internal organization and discipline of the Police force, but it is his duty to bring to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, all cases in which the conduct of and qualification of Police Officer affect the general administration of a district.”
5. As IPS Officers belong to an ‘All India Service’ it would be pertinent to note the provisions of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (for brevity ‘the 1970 Rules’), which were thereafter replaced by the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (for brevity, ‘the 2007 Rules’), in the context of the mode and method of preparation of ACRs/APARs of IPS Officers in the rank of SPs. Rules 2(e), 2(f) and 2(a) of the 1970 Rules defined ‘Reporting Authority’ or ‘Reviewing Authority’ and ‘Accepting Authority’ respectively, apropos preparation of ACRs/APARs. These Rules read as under:
“2(e) ‘reporting authority’ means the authority who was, during the period for which the confidential report is written, immediately superior to the member of the service and such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government.
2(f) ‘reviewin
