2026 Supreme(Jhk) 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Vijay Bihari Sharan – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs - Respondent
L.P.A No.446 of 2023
Decided On : 07-04-2026

All entries in a public servant's service record must be communicated to uphold natural justice. Authorities cannot introduce new allegations in final orders that were not part of the initial communication, and judicial oversight requires an active application of mind, prohibiting mechanical or stale adjudications.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Service record - Annual Confidential Report (ACR) - Communication of entries - Every entry, whether adverse or otherwise, must be communicated to the civil servant within a reasonable period - Non-communication is arbitrary and violative of principles of fairness and natural justice - (Paras 26, 27)

(B) Service Law - Adverse ACR entries - Scope of defense - Competent authority is precluded from traveling beyond the specific grounds initially communicated to the employee - Adding new allegations of misconduct in a subsequent order without providing a separate opportunity for the employee to defend against such additions violates the principles of natural justice - (Paras 28, 29, 43)

(C) Administrative Law - Consideration of representation - Meaning of - Requirement of active application of mind - Mere rejection based on a subjective belief without addressing specific defenses or documentary evidence on record renders a decision perfunctory - Order must demonstrate thorough consideration of all relevant materials - (Paras 55, 56)

(D) Appeal - Remand - Appropriateness of - Where substantial time (over 25 years) has elapsed from the date of the impugned entry and the authority has repeatedly failed to comply with legal requirements or directives, remanding the matter is unwarranted - A party should not be allowed to benefit from their own failure to act in accordance with law - (Paras 70, 71, 72, 74)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged adverse remarks inserted into the service record, which alleged professional absenteeism and poor conduct. The appellant contended these entries were unjustified, as all absences were pre-authorized for medical or official reasons. A previous judicial order mandated a fresh consideration of the representation, yet the authority failed to address the specific defenses and introduced new, uncommunicated allegations of misconduct in the subsequent rejection order.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authority’s refusal to expunge the remarks suffered from non-application of mind and violated procedural fairness. The authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by raising new misconducts at the appellate stage without providing the appellant an opportunity to respond. Given the significant delay of 25 years, the court declined a fresh remand.

Issues: Whether authorities can expand the scope of an adverse service entry by introducing new allegations post-communication; whether a summary rejection of a representation satisfies the requirement of a speaking order; and whether further remand is appropriate after decades of litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The recording of adverse entries and the subsequent consideration of representations must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards, including communication of all entries and the avoidance of new, unnotified allegations during the appellate stage. An administrative order must reflect an active application of mind to the worker’s defense evidence. Remand for fresh adjudication is inappropriate when the passage of time and previous failures have prejudiced the employee’s position.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the factual matrix, case history, and the petitioner's career background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. summary of contentions regarding the procedural fairness of acr entries and the adequacy of administrative reasoning. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. evaluation of whether the authority exceeded its jurisdiction by adding extraneous misconduct findings to acr entries without due process. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
4. adherence to the principle of natural justice requiring communication of all acr entries, as established in dev dutt and sukhdev singh. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 63 , 64 , 65)
5. final order quashing the adverse remarks due to improper procedure and excessive procedural delays. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment/order dated 25.04.2023 passed in W.P(S) No.5499 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant writ petitioner.

2. In the writ petition being W.P(S) No.5499 of 2012, the following prayers have been made by the writ petitioner:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, orders directions or a Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Memo dated 24.09.2001 issued under the signature of Additional Dy. Inspector General of Police (Personnel-I) i.e. the Respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder adverse remarks in the ACR of the writ petitioner was communicated to the petitioner even when the basic misconduct alleged by the respondent authority of absence from service was due to the fact that the petitioner attended official work after attaining clearance from his higher officials.

And/or

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, orders directions for quashing of the consequent order dated 17.03.2010 issued by the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force i.e. the Respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder the submissions of the petitioner in his representation against the aforesaid adverse remarks have been rejected summarily without assigning any cogent reason or without going through the materials on records and the representation of the petitioner.

And/or

(iii) For any other writ(s)/order(s)direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case for doing equitable and conscionable justice to the petitioner”

Factual Matrix

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition as has been asserted in the memo of appeal reads as under:

i. The appellant-petitioner was Commandant, 10th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted in 121st Battalion at HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

ii. During his tenure of service, he had variously served throughout the country at different places and was involved in various crucial and sensitive operations against the extremists of North East of Assam, Kokrajar, Kashmir insurgencies and other places and during the period 1980-82, he was actively involved in the operations against Naxalites in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and in the period 1995-96 to 1997-99, he was posted in sensitive areas of Assam and North East.

iii. Further, during the period 1999 and 2000 he was posted at Baramulla in Jammu-Kashmir and was actively involved in the operation against Kashmir insurgency;

iv. All the aforesaid postings are considered to be hard posting in the organization. The area mentioned above against which he was posted were particularly disturbed and he performed his job with great sincerity and sensitivity attached to it. The appellant performed his duty to his fullest efficiency and sincerity for which he was also given many commendation certificates.

v. Further, he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document