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 Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1990.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. D. Das and Mr. A. Das, learned counsels for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner challenges the manner in which a remark was entered into his Annual Confidential Report (ACR in short) for the year 2017-2018 which resulted in depriving him from his promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS in short). The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 28.12.2021 by which the prayer for expunging the adverse remarks in his ACR has been rejected. He further assailed and alleged non-communication of full ACR including the overall grading and assessment of integrity to the petitioner.

3. Facts necessary for consideration of the grievance of the petitioner, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was inducted in the Assam Civil Service through the Assam Public Service Commission. He joined his service on 25.05.1992. He was promoted to the cadre of Senior Grade I vide order dated 31.12.2015 and posted as District Development Commissioner, Dhubri. The petitioner was transferred and posted as Chief Executive Officer, Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad vide notification dated 17.02.2016. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted as Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zilla Parishad vide notification dated 05.10.2016. The petitioner was Graded in his ACR as “Outstanding” in the year 2016-2017. The service of the petitioner has been recognised by the authorities concerned for his outstanding efforts and many awards and incentives were given by the authorities. According to the petitioner, all those commendation and national awards of the petitioner from 2016 to 2018 given to the petitioner by the Central Government have been ignored by the Reporting Officer, while making the assessment of ACR of the petitioner. While assessing the ACR, the Reporting Officer has not called for special report from the Commissioner of Division and President, Zilla Parishad, which is an indispensible requirement under the relevant notifications (infra).

4. Alleging malafide against the Reporting Authority i.e. the respondent no. 7, it is contended that the facts regarding the institution of Contempt Case (C) No. 94 of 2018, may have a bearing in recording the critical/adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner by the Reporting Authority i.e. the respondent no. 7, who was the then Commissioner & Secretary of the Department. This Court vide order dated 09.02.2018 passed in WP(C)5828 of 2017, issued a direction to the responded no. 7, who was also the Reporting Officer of the petitioner for the year 2017-2018, to dispose of the representation in connection with the settlement of Moirabari Bi-weekly market under Morigaon Zilla Parishad. The petitioner disposed of the representation of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5828 of 2017, though the Commissioner i.e. respondent no. 7, was directed to dispose of the representation. As the respondent no. 7 did not dispose of the representation in compliance with the direction of the Court, a contempt case, referred to above, was filed in which the respondent no. 7 was asked to be personally present before the Court along with the petitioner. Therefore, this fact, according to the petitioner, has irked Respondent No. 7 and led him to act against the petitioner by entering an adverse remark into ACR.

5. I