Back
2022 Supreme(Tri) 187
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Nandan Pal - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 468 of 2020
Decided On : 05-07-2022
Mr. Somik Deb,Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abir Baran, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A, Mr. P. Saha, Advocate, for the Respondent
Adverse entries in ACRs must be communicated to the employee, who must be given an opportunity to present a defense, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Article 14, 16, 19, 311 of the Constitution of India - Downgrading of ACRs - Prior to recording of adverse entries in ACRs, opportunity of representation must be afforded to the employee; violation constitutes breach of natural justice - ACRs were downgraded without affording the petitioner an opportunity to contest the entries - The Court remands the matter for reconsideration by the reporting officer, requiring adherence to principles of natural justice and due process. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The Court emphasized that any decision affecting the rights of an individual, especially in public service, must comply with principles of natural justice to prevent prejudicial consequences. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Panchayat Extension Officer, challenged the downgraded entries in his ACRs for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 after being penalized previously; he contended lack of opportunity to confront downgraded entries as a significant violation of his rights under natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The downgrading of the petitioner was ruled improper as it breached the right to defend against adverse remarks; the case was remitted for correct procedural evaluation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to challenge the downgraded ACR entries, raising significant concerns about adherence to natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prior to recording adverse entries in ACRs, the employee must be given an opportunity to represent, failing which the entries cannot be acted upon adversely.
Result: The matter was remitted to the reviewing authority for evaluation and appropriate action.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grievance regarding acr downgrade without response. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural flaws in grading and natural justice. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. inquiry findings and responsibility of reviewing officers. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 4. natural justice implications for public servants. (Para 11) |
| 5. court's directive for reconsideration of acr. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abir Baran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The principal grievance as canvassed in this writ petition is that the petitioner is serving as Panchayat Extension Officer. On 14.12.2017, a penalty of Censure was inflicted on to the petitioner. Assailing the said order dated 14.12.2017, the petitioner filed a writ petition, marked as WPC. No. 07 of 2018, before this Court and by an order dated 04.06.2018 the same was allowed, thereby quashing/setting aside the said order dated 14.12.2017. Under the RTI Act, the petitioner submitted an application dated 21.10.2019 and thereby, requesting for furnishing the copies of the ACRs of the years 2015-2016, 2016- 2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. In response thereto, the SPIO issued a reply dated 11.11.2019 furnishing the copies of the said ACRs of the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by such downgrading of the ACRs, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.12.2019 to the Director of Panchayats, Panchayat Department, Government of Tripura, inter alia r3equesitn for expunging the downgraded entries, recorded therein. Even after submission of the said representation, neither any expunction has been made with regard to the grading, noted in the said ACRs, nor any reply whatsoever, has been furnished to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this present this petition.
4. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abir Baran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, by an order dated 03.03.2011, in exercise of the powers, conferred by Rule-10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS & CCA Rules, for short], the Director of Panchayats, Government of Tripura had placed the petitioner under suspension, with immediate effect thereof. Thereafter, by a memorandum dated 16.09.2011, the Director Panchayat, Government of Tripura initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, thereby framing the articles of charge and the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of the said charge.
5. In connection with the departmental proceeding initiated, vide memorandum dated 16.09.2011, the disciplinary authority, appointed an inquiry officer, to enquire into the charges, levelled against the petitioner, pursuant whereto, witnesses were examined and their depositions were recorded. After conclusion of the said proceeding, the Inquiry Officer passed an Inquiry report on 07.10.2017 stating that
'....In view of the above perspective and basis of material presented and evidence made available, I find and hold that the prosecution has fail to prove the article of charge brought against the AO. Therefore, the charges levelled against are get shattered and found not guilty.'
6. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has contended that it would manifestly reveal that in both the impugned ACRs of 2017-2018 & 2018- 2019, even though the reporting officer had graded the petitioner as 'Outstanding' but while reviewing the same, the Director of Panchayats, Panchayat Department, Government of Tripura after accepting the same entries, had downgraded the petitioner as 'Very Good' thereby taking the umbrage of non-recording of views regarding the integrity and reliability of the petitioner and non-submission of the supporting documents with regard to the entries, by the reporting officer. He has further contended that even though
