IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Ganeshwary Dushyantkumar Shah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 9284 of 2014
Decided on : 08-08-2024
Mandamus - Adverse Remarks - Government Resolution 31.03.1989 - The court emphasized the necessity of timely communication of adverse remarks within six weeks as per the Government Resolution, ruling that failure to do so invalidates such remarks and influences the decision to quash them.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged adverse remarks in her confidential report for the years 2012-2015, claiming they were communicated beyond the stipulated six-week period as per the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adverse remarks were not communicated within the required timeframe, violating the Government Resolution, and thus ruled them invalid.
Issues: Whether the adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner were valid given the delay in communication beyond the stipulated six weeks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adverse remarks not communicated within the six-week period as mandated by the Government Resolution are invalid and cannot be considered against the employee.
Result: The court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to ignore the adverse remarks for the years 2012-2015.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:
(A) Quashing and setting aside the letter dt.17.12.2013 and order dt.24.4.2014, communicating and maintaining the adverse remarks for the period from 1.4.2012 to 22.12.2012.
(A1) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call upon the Respondent Authorities to produce the original copy of the Confidential Report for the year 2012-13, which clearly indicates how the same has been tampered with;
(A2) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the communications dated 23.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 from the Jt. Director of Technical Education confirming the adverse remarks against the Petitioner for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015;
(A3) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to expunge the adverse remarks made against the Petitioner for three successive years from 2012-13 to 2014-15 and allot the same numbers of marks as given by the reporting Officer in Performance Appraisal Report of 2014-15.”
(A4) Your Lordships may be pleased to award the costs of the Petition to the Petitioner;
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may be restrained from acting upon the adverse remarks communicated vide letter dt.17.12.2013 for any purpose.
(C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”
2. The petitioner herein has challenged the adverse remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2012 to 22.12.2012 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.12.2013. Pending the present petition, by way of amendment, the petitioner has challenged the adverse remarks in the confidential report for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 communicated to the petitioner on 23.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 respectively from the Joint Director of Technical Education – respondent No.3 herein; confirming the said adverse remarks.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid adverse remarks for the aforesaid period were never communicated to the petitioner herein within stipulated time. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989; duly produced at Annexure – F, page 45, more particularly, Clause 11 of the said Resolution whereby, such adverse remarks are required to be communicated to the employee within a period of six weeks. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Clause – 11 has been given a go back by the respondent authorities by issuing communication/notice to the petitioner on 17.12.2013; which is duly produced at Annexure – A.
2.2 It is also the case of the petitioner that being communicated with the aforesaid communication, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 15.01.2014 to the respondent authorities, which came to be rejected by the impugned communications dated 06.03.2014 and 24.04.2014 duly produced at Annexure – C, page 35 and Annexure – E, page 43 respectively. Being aggrieved by the impugned communications by the Deputy Director, Technical Education, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition mainly, on the ground that the aforesaid adverse remarks in the confidential report which are communicated to the petitioner, are beyond a period of six weeks and in view thereof, the said are be directed not to be taken into consideration.
3. Heard Mr. Anupam V. Uchat for Dr. Ganeshwary Dushyantkumar Shah, learned party-in-person for the petitioner herein and Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
4. Mr. Anupam V. Uchat, learned party-in-person appearing for the petitioner, relied on the grounds stated in the present petition and submitted that the State Government has issued a Resolution dated 31.03.1989 laying down the guidelines regarding writing, maintaining, communicating the adv
Timely communication of adverse remarks is essential; failure to comply renders such remarks invalid.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse remarks to be specific, communicated within a reasonable period, and based on fair assessment without prejudice. The....
Every entry in an employee's ACR, including adverse remarks, must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period, ensuring the right to contest such entries, as established by the Assam S....
Non-communication of adverse entries in Confidential Reports violates natural justice and affects promotion eligibility.
The assessment of public servants must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness and objectivity in performance appraisals and providing necessary reasoning for downgrades.
The court emphasized the importance of allowing public servants to improve their performance based on ACR entries and highlighted the limited role of the court in reviewing ACR entries.
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 gradings below promotion benchmark ('good' vs 'very good') cannot be considered and must be deemed as meeting benchmark; renders decisions arbitrary violating Art.14 and natural ju....
Non-communication of performance remarks in ACRs violates natural justice and can adversely affect promotion eligibility, necessitating expungement of such remarks.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.