Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3900
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Anoop Kumar Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 15292 of 2018
Decided On : 06-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Samir Sharma (Senior Adv.)
For the Respondents: Ajeet Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Girish Chandra Yadav
Failure to dispose of representations against adverse performance reports within the prescribed statutory time-frame renders such reports legally ineffective, prohibiting authorities from relying on them to deny service benefits like promotions or Assured Career Progression.
Headnote:(A) Government Servants (Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters Rules), 1995 - Rules 4 and 5 - Service Law - Assured Career Progression - Adverse Annual Performance Reports - Delay in disposal of representation - Whether adverse entries not decided within stipulated time limit can be considered for denying service benefits - Held, no. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Service Law - Adverse entries - Effect of non-disposal of representation - Where the competent authority fails to decide a representation against an adverse report within the mandatory time frame, such a report shall not be treated as adverse for the purposes of promotion, advancement, and other service benefits. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was denied the second Assured Career Progression benefit due to successive adverse entries in his service record. The petitioner contended that these entries were not liable to be considered as adverse because the representations filed against them were not decided by the competent authority within the time frame mandated by the applicable 1995 Rules. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not possess an unblemished record of service, thus justifying the denial of career advancement.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appeals against the adverse entries were not decided in accordance with the mandate of the applicable 1995 Rules. The Court observed that the time-bound disposal of representations is a vital safeguard. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for failing to adhere to the prescribed timelines, the authorities are legally precluded from treating such reports as adverse for the purpose of granting benefits.
Issues: Whether adverse entries remain valid for denying career advancement benefits if the representations filed against them are not decided within the mandatory timeline prescribed by the relevant service rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the 1995 Rules, if an adverse report is not communicated or a representation against it is not disposed of in accordance with Rule 4, such report cannot be treated as adverse for service benefits. The directory nature of the statutory timeline does not allow for impunity; authorities must provide sufficient cause for delays to justify a departure from the mandate.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for denial of acp based on adverse service entries. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding validity of entries and circulars. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. chronology of adverse entries and outcome of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. statutory framework governing disposal of adverse secret reports (rules of 1995). (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. interplay between directory and mandatory rules in adverse entry disposal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. application of rules to grant of acp and non-retrospective denial of benefits. (Para 15 , 16 , 22) |
| 7. final order granting petitioner benefits, costs, and timeline for compliance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. By the impugned order dated 07.12.2017, the second ACP to which the petitioner had claimed entitlement has been declined.
2. The impugned order states that the first ACP was granted to the petitioner on 01.11.2006 after he became eligible for the same. Subsequently, the petitioner became entitled for consideration for grant of second ACP on 01.11.2012 i.e. after six years of grant of selection grade/16 years of service. The impugned order records that the petitioner had earned four successive adverse entries in the relevant years. A chargesheet had also been drawn up against him in the said period. His record of service in the relevant period was not satisfactory. On this footing the petitioner was not found entitled for the ACP.
3. Shri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits:
i. That the three entries on which reliance was placed were not liable to be considered as adverse since the representations of the petitioner against the said entries were not decided in the time frame contemplated in Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters Rules), 1995.
ii. As far as the fourth adverse entry was not liable to be considered as it did not pertain to the relevant period for grant of ACP.
iii. The petitioner was exonerated of the charges enumerated in the chargesheet after a disciplinary enquiry. The fourth entry was advisory in nature.
4. Shri Girish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent submits that:
i. The petitioner did not have an unblemished record of service.
ii. He had earned successive bad entries for the period of four years.
iii. In view of the aforesaid record of service it cannot be stated that the petitioner had a satisfactory record of service.
iv. The ACP scheme is not applicable to the respondent in view of the departmental order dated 17.10.2017.
5. Rejoining the issue Shri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid circular of the year 2017 has been recalled by circular dated 05.03.2020.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. These facts are established from the pleadings and from the records. The petitioner became entitled for grant of second ACP on 01.11.2012. The record of service including the ACRs awarded to the petitioner up to the aforesaid date alone were liable to be considered for grant of second ACP benefits. The petitioner was awarded an adverse entry in the year 2009-10 which was served upon him on 11.01.2011. The petitioner appealed against the said entry by instituting a departmental appeal on 25.02.2011. The aforesaid appeal was decided on 01.01.2013. The petitioner was awarded an adverse entry for the year 2010-11 in January, 2012 which was carried in appeal on 10.02.2012. The said appeal has not been decided till date. Lastly, the petitioner was awarded an adverse entry for the year 2011-12. The same was served upon him in July, 2012. The petitioner took the aforesaid entry in appeal before the competent authority on 30.07.2012. The aforesaid appeal was rejected on 01.01.2013.
8. A chargesheet was drawn up against the petitioner on 30.03.2012.
