Failure to adhere to prescribed procedural safeguards in the appraisal of an officer's Annual Confidential Report, specifically neglecting mandatory inputs from relevant authorities, vitiates the decision-making process as it undermines fairness and objectivity.

(Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. The present writ appeal calls in question the judgment and order dated 25-06-2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 367/2022, whereby the writ petition was allowed.

2. The adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the Respondent Officer for the year 2017-18, together with the consequential order rejecting his representation, were interfered with, relegating the matter to the employer to do the needful in terms of an office memorandum.

3. The principal challenge laid by the appellant is that the learned Single Judge transgressed certain limits of judicial review in matters of confidential assessment and erroneously treated the appraisal process as vitiated on the ground of non-adherence to the procedure laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2007, which, according to the appellants, was inconsequential and no prejudice has been caused to the respondent.

4. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge attached undue significance to the Office Memorandum dated 31-05-2007.

5. According to the appellants, the said memorandum was only an administrative arrangement identifying the reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities in respect of Chief Executive Officers of a Zilla Parishad, and any deviation therefrom in the absence of demonstrable prejudice could not render the ACR non-est.

6. It is contended that the reporting authority was not bound to mechanically depend upon outside inputs and could independently evaluate the officer on the basis of his own knowledge and supervision.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent officer supports the judgment under appeal and submits that the interference made by the learned Single Judge was not directed against the merits of assessment simpliciter but against the process adopted, which is fundamentally flawed in law.

8. It is contended that the respondent was serving as Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon, Zilla Parishad during the relevant period and therefore his case was squarely governed by the special procedure laid down under the Office Memorandum dated 31-05-2007.

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

10. The Office Memorandum dated 31-05-2007 clearly reveals that it was issued after noting that no specific provision existed under the Assam Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1990, regarding the recording, reviewing, and accepting authorities in respect of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad.

11. The Government accordingly prescribed that the Commissioner and Secretary, P&RD Department would be the Reporting Authority, the Chief Secretary, the Reviewing authority and the Minister, P&RD Department as the Accepting Authority.

12. Significantly, the memorandum further stipulated that before writing the report, the Reporting Authority shall obtain a special report for the period under assessment from the concerned Divisional Commissioner and also from the president of Zilla Parishad.

13. The Office Memorandum dated 31-05-2007, in our opinion, is not an empty formality. It was framed precisely to fill an acknowledged procedural gap concerning officers holding the post of Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad.

14. Once the Government consciously evolved a special mechanism for appraisa