IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for communication of all remarks in the ACR to the concerned employee and the opportunity for the employee to make representations against adverse actions.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 11.11.2020, whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 48(1) (b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondents issued notice to the petitioner that on completing 30 years of qualifying service for pension on 20.06.2019, he was retired from service on the forenoon of 01.03.2021. It is also the case of the petitioner that no adverse ACR had ever been communicated to him, and as such, the same could not have been taken for consideration in the review of his service beyond 30 years of qualifying service.

2. The respondents by their affidavit have stated that the service review of the petitioner was conducted on 03.03.2020, wherein he was recommended for further retention in service, but as it was discovered that the Service Review Board was not in order as per laid down policy, the same was rejected by the respondent No. 2 and thereafter, fresh Service Review Board was carried out on 08.08.2020. Thereafter, it appears the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 on being examined by the Service Review Board, he was found ineligible for further retention in service due to lacking in ACR criteria, and consequently his retention in service was not approved by the Board. It is also contended that in view of this aspect, retiring pension notice was issued by order dated 11.11.2020, fixing his retirement date on 01.03.2021, giving him a clear 3(three) months' notice, to which however, the petitioner never represented against.

3. It is submitted by Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner that this case is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.03.2022, passed in MC(WA) No. 64 of 2021 in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Joseph K.S

, and that the petitioner shall therefore be entitled to similar relief. He submits that the ACRs were never communicated to the petitioner and that as per the recommendation of the Service Review Board (Annexure-12 to the affidavit-in-opposition), it is seen that the petitioner was not recommended for promotion only in the year 2015-2016, whereas his subsequent performance had been up to the mark and had been graded well thereafter.

4. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the above noted judgment placed by the petitioner, this Court is in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that the matter is covered by the said judgment. For the sake of convenience Paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 which are relevant are reproduced herein below:

'44. However, in the light of the dictum in Sukhdev Singh, the law of the land is now that all remarks in the ACR should be communicated to the concerned employee. That would preclude any fine distinction being made as to what may amount to be an adverse remark and what may not.

45. For the foregoing reasons, the failure on the part of the appellant-employer to communicate to the first respondent-writ petitioner that he had not been recommended for promotion in the year 2014-15 is seen to have occasioned grave prejudice to the writ petitioner as he was denied a chance to make a representation thereagainst. As a consequence of the writ petitioner not being recommended for promotion in the relevant year, the writ petitioner's fate was sealed and he was precluded from being considered for retention in service when the time to consider the same arrived. In effect, as a consequence of the applicable rules, it was known to the employer in 2014-15 that the writ petitioner would have to retire in 2017 but the writ petitioner had no inkling that his case for retention in service would not be considered at all since he had, admittedly, not been informed that he had not been recommended for promotion in 2014-15.

46. In view of the above and the additional reasons furnished, the order impugned does not call for any interference. The writ petition is allowed by permit