1. Dispute concerning the validity of a downgraded grade in a Performance Appraisal Report under the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 209
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
The State Of Haryana - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Khemka & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 3959 of 2024, [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 13972 of 2019]
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shivang Jain, Adv. Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nitikaa Guptha, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Adv. Mr. Ganesh A. Khemka, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shivang Jain, Adv. Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nitikaa Guptha, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Adv. Mr. Ganesh A. Khemka, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer entails depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced understanding of proficiency required to be at forefront of bureaucracy.
Headnote:
All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 – Rule 9 – Evaluation of an IAS officer – Overall grading and assessment of an IAS officer requires in-depth understanding of various facets of an administrative functionary such as personality traits, tangible and quantifiable professional parameters which may include competency and ability to execute projects; adaptability; problem-solving and decision-making skills; planning and implementation capabilities and skill to formulate and evaluate strategy – Process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer entails depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced understanding of proficiency required to be at forefront of bureaucracy – High Court entered into a specialised domain, evaluating competency of an IAS officer by way of contrasting and comparing remarks and overall grades awarded to Respondent No. 1 – High Court ought not to have ventured into said domain particularly when Accepting Authority is yet to pronounce its decision qua underlying representation – Judgement of Division Bench of High Court set aside.(Paras 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal preferred by State of Haryana seeks to assail correctness of an order dated 18.03.2019 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a writ petition wherein High Court set aside an order dated 03.12.2018 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and, accordingly (i) expunged opinion of Accepting Authority; and (ii) restored (a) the opinion of Reviewing Authority; and (b) grade awarded by Reviewing Authority i.e., 9.92 qua Respondent No. 1’s performance appraisal report under provisions of All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.
Findings of Court:
Accepting Authority is yet to take a decision on Underlying Representation, Accepting Authority directed to take a decision on Underlying Representation under Rule 9(7B) of PAR Rules within a period of 60 (sixty) days from date of pronouncement of this Judgement. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 is granted liberty to take recourse to remedies as may be available under law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether timelines in the appraisal schedule are mandatory and if the Accepting Authority acted arbitrarily in downgrading the officer's grade. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. The court found that Rule 5(1) timelines were met, no prejudice was caused by an outstanding grade, and the High Court overstepped into administrative expertise. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Timelines are directory unless consequences for inaction are expressly provided; courts must exercise restraint in interfering with administrative decisions involving specialized expertise. (Para 17 , 18 , 25 , 27 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; Accepting Authority directed to decide the underlying representation within sixty days. (Para 29 , 31 )
6. Are timelines prescribed for public functionaries in administrative schedules generally mandatory or directory?
Timelines are ordinarily directory. However, they become imperative when the statute expressly provides consequences for inaction on the part of the statutory authorities within the specified time. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. What is the effect of failing to record a Performance Appraisal Report by 31st December of the year in which the financial year ended?
Under Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules, if a report is not recorded by 31st December, no remarks shall be recorded thereafter, and the officer may be assessed based on overall record and self-assessment. (Para 16 , 21 )
8. To what extent can a Constitutional Court interfere with administrative decisions involving specialized expertise, such as the evaluation of senior officers?
Courts should exercise restraint and avoid substituting their view for that of the administrative authority in the absence of mala fide or prejudice, especially where the process requires specialized domain expertise. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
(Satish Chandra Sharma, J.) :
Introduction1[NOTE: For ease of reference any capitalised terms used but not defined hereinafter, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term under the All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.]
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal preferred by the State of Haryana seeks to assail the correctness of an order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (the “High Court”) in a writ petition bearing number CWP 317 of 2019 (O&M) wherein the High Court set aside an order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (the “CAT”) and, accordingly (i) expunged the opinion of the Accepting Authority; and (ii) restored (a) the opinion of the Reviewing Authority; and (b) the grade awarded by the Reviewing Authority i.e., 9.92 qua Respondent No. 1’s performance appraisal report under the provisions of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (the “PAR Rules”) (the “Impugned Order”).
Factual Matrix
3. On 07.06.2017, Respondent No. 1 i.e., an Indian Administrative Services (“IAS”) Officer belonging to the batch of 1991 and presently holding the rank of Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, submitted his self-appraisal form qua the annual performance appraisal report envisaged under the PAR Rules for the period commencing 08.04.2016 up until 31.03.2017 (the “PAR”).
4. Thereafter on 08.06.2017, Respondent No. 1 came to be appraised by the Reporting Authority i.e., the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana and, accordingly came to be awarded, inter alia, an overall grade of 8.22. Subsequently on 27.06.2017, a divergent view was taken by the Reviewing Authority i.e., the Health Minister of Haryana who upgraded Respondent No. 1’s overall grade to ‘9.92’. On 31.12.2017, the Accepting Authority i.e., the Chief Minister of Haryana rejected the aforesaid and downgraded Respondent No. 1’s overall grade to ‘9’ in the PAR.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, Respondent No. 1 made a representation under Rule 9 (2) of the PAR Rules on 12.01.2018 seeking, inter alia, the (i) quashing of the remarks and overall grading recorded by the Accepting Authority; and (ii) restoration of remarks and overall grading awarded by the Reviewing Authority (the “Underlying Representation”).
6. Pursuant to the Underlying Representation, additional remark(s) were submitted by (i) the Reporting Authority on 5.02.2018; and (ii) the Reviewing Authority on 12.02.2018, to the Accepting Authority for further action under Rule 9 (7B) of the PAR Rules. Despite the aforesaid, no decision was taken by the Accepting Authority qua the Underlying Representation.
7. Accordingly, aggrieved by the inaction vis-à-vis the Underlying Representation, Respondent No. 1 preferred an application bearing number O.A. No. 60/1058/2018 before the CAT seeking deletion of the remarks and overall grades recorded by the Accepting Authority; and restoration of the overall grades and remarks awarded by the Reviewing Authority in the PAR (the “OA”). Vide an order dated 03.12.2018, the CAT dismissed the OA relying upon Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules read with Paragraph 9.4 of Appendix -II of the ‘General Guidelines for Filing-Up the PAR Form for IAS Officers Except the Level of Secretary or Additional Secretary or Equivalent to the Government of India’ (the “Guidelines”) (the “CAT Order”). The operative paragraph(s) of the CAT Order are reproduced as under:
“7. A co-joint reading of the aforementioned rule and guideline makes it clear that, they provide a window, by not having a barring clause on the Accepting Authority recording remarks beyond the prescribed time limit, and have actually set a date of 31st December of the year in which the financial year ended as the time limit for recording PAR. Thus, the limit fixed for writing the appraisal report by various authorities, in the Schedule 2, is the minimum or ideal period within which the remarks are requi
