Adverse remarks in officials' performance evaluations must be justified and communicated; inconsistency with positive assessments renders them void.

ORDER

Date : 28-03-2019

Heard Mr. N. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department.

2) The petitioner is aggrieved by certain remarks entered by the Reporting Officer in his ACR for the period of 2010-11 (from 04.01.2010 to 31.03.2011), in which the following remark was made under the column, “General remarks, if any” of ACR form:

“Sometime speaks wrong thing at wrong place and wrong time”

3) The contention of the petitioner in brief is that the said remark was totally out of place made by the Reporting Officer, which will be clearly evident if one goes through the entire ACRs recorded by the same Reporting Officer not only in the particular assessment year in issue, but also in subsequent assessment years and also the observations and remarks made by the Reviewing and the Accepting Authorities.

4) It has been submitted also that the said remark was never made known to the petitioner, i.e., he was never communicated such an adverse remark.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid remark in fact, is adverse vis-à-vis the other remarks and the assessment/ grading made in ACRs for the aforesaid year as well as subsequent years.

6) It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is because of this remark, which is adverse in nature, which came in the way of his being promoted to the higher post of Indian Forest Service.

7) According to the petitioner such adverse remark must have played a role in the mind of the members of the review Selection Committee when they held the meeting for promotion to the post of Indian Forest Service on 20.12.2017 and earlier occasions.

8) Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking expunction of the aforesaid remarks from the ACR which he considers to be adverse, which has adversely affected his career prospects and continues to do so.

9) Learned standing counsel for the Forest Department, however, has raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the aforesaid so called adverse remark was made by the Reporting Officer, when the petitioner was posted in the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) area, and as such, only the BTC authority which has full control over the officers and Staff connected with the entrusted subjects working in the BTC area will have the authority and competence to expunge the remark, if required.

It has been submitted that ACRs of these officers are written by the appropriate BTC authorities.

10) It has been submitted that since the BTC is the only competent authority which could record the ACRs, any expunction also has to be done by the BTC authority only.

11) Accordingly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Forest Department that since the BTC is the competent authority to comment upon the said ACRs, or the expunge any adverse remarks, the Forest Department as no role to play.

12) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

13) In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner that the aforesaid remark amounts to an adverse remark in the context of the overall assessment made in the ACRs not only by the concerned Reporting Officer but also by the Reviewing and Accepting authorities; and that the aforesaid remark is out of tune with the other general tenor of the entries made in the ACRs and thus, is inconsistent with the other remaining remarks or observations made in the ACRs, it would be necessary to examine the relevant portions of the ACRs for the relevant period.

14) Accordingly, for the aforesaid purpose, the relevant portions of the same