Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Shiva Mohan Jha, son of Late Nathuni Jha – Appellant
Versus
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.4924 of 2022
Decided on : 26-09-2023
Adverse Entry - Service Matter - [Section 3, Section 4, Section 6, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 22, Section 27, Section 37, Section 41, Section 46, Section 47, Section 48, Section 49, Section 50, Section 51, Section 52, Section 53, Section 54, Section 55, Section 56, Section 57, Section 58, Section 59, Section 60, Section 61, Section 62, Section 63, Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 67, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section 72, Section 73, Section 74, Section 75] - The court discussed the adverse entry made in the ACR for the year 2000-01 and the subsequent rejection of the claim for next higher IDA scale. The court emphasized the need for communication of adverse entries and the opportunity for the concerned employee to file objections. It highlighted the policy decision regarding the due date for upgradation and the need for a final decision on objections before considering adverse entries as a basis for rejection. The court quashed the decision rejecting the claim for next higher IDA scale and directed the extension of consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Divisional Engineer, had adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2000-01, which were partially expunged. The petitioner filed objections for expunging the remaining adverse remarks, but the decision was pending. The petitioner became eligible for upgradation on 01.10.2004, but the claim was rejected based on the adverse entry. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the claim for upgradation based on the adverse entry was not justified, considering the delay in taking a final decision on the objections. The court quashed the rejection and directed the extension of consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the communication of adverse entries, the need for a final decision on objections before considering adverse entries for rejection, and the justification of rejecting the claim for upgradation based on a pending objection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of communicating adverse entries, providing an opportunity for objections, and taking a final decision before considering adverse entries for rejection. It also highlighted the need to prevent undue advantage from delays in decision-making.
Final Decision: The court quashed the rejection of the claim for next higher IDA scale and directed the extension of consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in OA/051/00147/2019 by which the order dated 18.05.2009 communicated on 25.05.2009 wherein the respondents upheld their decision dated 22.02.2005 in respect of adverse entry in the applicant’s ACR for the year 2000-01. Further, the direction to expunge the adverse entry as communicated vide letter dated 27.03.2002 to the extent upheld in the order dated 22.02.2005 and to treat the ACR as “Good” in the light of representation dated 21.03.2005 as also the decision dated 25.05.2009 wherein the respondents have rejected I.D.A. upgradation scale to the applicant has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the original application.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the original application, which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :-
3. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that when Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited was formed, the petitioner's service was transferred to M.T.N.L. (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited) for a short period from 16.08.1998 to 27.11.1998. Thereafter on 01.10.2000 B.S.N.L. (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) was formed as a Government of India Enterprise and the service of the petitioner was transferred to B.S.N.L. w.e.f. 01.10.2000 where he served up to 31.12.2005.
4. The writ petitioner had superannuated on 31.12.2005. At the time of superannuation, the petitioner was posted as Divisional Engineer, Commercial in the office of the General Manager, Telecommunication, Ranchi at Telecom District Ranchi.
5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on promotion the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,200/-. The said promotion was an ad-hoc promotion. BSNL treated the petitioner and others who were placed in the aforesaid scale of pay to be in telecommunication engineering service Group 'B'.
6. It is the case of the writ petitioner that while serving as Divisional Engineer (Commercial) in the office of General Manager, Telecommunication, Ranchi, for the year 2000-01 some adverse remarks were made in the ACR. The said adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.03.2002. The petitioner filed representation dated 21.04.2002 against the said adverse remarks. After considering the representation, the same were ordered to be expunged partially and communicated by memo dated 22.02.2005.
7. The petitioner preferred an appeal for expunction of the remaining adverse remarks vide his representation dated 21.03.2005 before the Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Jharkhand Telecommunication Circle, Ranchi in respect of adverse remarks for the year 2000-01.
8. During the pendency of the appeal, the writ petitioner had superannuated on 31.12.2005. After his retirement, an office memorandum was circulated vide OM dated 18.01.2007 which was given retrospective effect. As per the policy, the eligibility criteria for IDA scale up-gradation as laid down in the OM required that the applicant should have completed 04 (four) years of service in the current IDA scale and the ACRS for the previous 05 (five) years should not have any adverse remark.
9. The petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents for considering his case for next higher IDA scale as per Office Memorandum dated 18.01.2007. When n
Non-communication of adverse ACR within the stipulated time period can adversely affect a government servant's career and should not form the basis for denying benefits, as established by legal princ....
Adverse remarks lose significance if the employee is promoted based on merit, and the last five years' remarks in the service book should be considered for promotion. Delay in affirming adverse remar....
Communication of aCRs within a reasonable period is crucial for fairness and transparency in public administration, as established in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh.
Non-communication of ACR entries is arbitrary and violates Article 14, but does not invalidate subsequent promotion if criteria are met.
The court upheld that all ACR entries must be communicated within a reasonable time, ruling that uncommunicated remarks cannot affect entitlements under service rules.
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.
The importance of communicating adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to the employee and the impact of such entries on promotion.
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
