Back
NELSON SAILO
Pankaj Dixit – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Key Points: - The petitioner alleges non-communication of ACR gradings denied him a fair promotion consideration and seeks up-gradation of ACR with consequential benefits. (!) (!) - The Court held that the representation for up-gradation of ACR is not an empty formality and must be meticulously examined with a reasoned order, preferably within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order. (!) (!) - The Court directed the competent authority to re-visit the petitioner’s representations dated 20.07.2010 and 30.03.2011 and complete examination expeditiously, granting consequential benefits if up-gradation is warranted, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for respondent No. 4 despite notice.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in a nutshell is that he has been given the grading of “Average” in his ACR for the period from 14.05.2005 to 09.01.2006 and from 01.04.2006 to 23.03.2007. He was not communicated with the same prior to the holding of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for considering the promotion from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) under the Border Roads Organization (BRO).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that as a result, the private respondent No. 4 who is much junior to him was promoted and therefore, grave injustice has been caused to him.
4. Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was clearly eligible to be considered for promotion when the DPC met on 29.06.2010 but his name was dropped on account of there being two gradings of “Average” for the two periods referred. Although, such entry was said to have been communicated to the petitioner vide Communication da
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.
Downgrading an employee's performance ratings without communicating the reasons or providing an opportunity for a hearing violates the principles of natural justice. Uncommunicated adverse entries ca....
Denial of promotion based on non-communicated below benchmark ACRs violates Article 14, and such non-communication is arbitrary and illegal.
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.
The Court established that non-communication of ACR gradings violates principles of natural justice and fairness in public administration.
The Court established that communication of ACR gradings is mandatory for fairness and transparency, enabling employees to contest their evaluations.
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
