A representation against adverse ACR entries must be decided by a higher authority to ensure fairness and avoid bias.

Order

07/05/2025

1. The matter has been listed in the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the impugned order/communication dated 06.06.2003 (Annexure-P/3) whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that his representation qua adverse entries made in the Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘ACR’) for the year 1999-2000 has been rejected by the Competent Authority and the adverse entries have been affirmed. It is relevant to note here that the order whereby the representation of the petitioner had been rejected, had not been placed on record by the petitioner with a submission that it was never supplied to him. However, the said order dated 04.02.2003 along with certain other documents were subsequently placed on record by counsel for the respondents on directions of the Court. The same were taken on record vide order dated 02.04.2025.

3. Counsel for the petitioner while raising other grounds on merit, at the very inception, submits that the representation as filed by the petitioner has been decided and rejected by the same officer who was the Accepting Officer of the petitioner at the relevant point of time. The Accepting Officer consented to the adverse entries as made by the Reviewing Officer. Meaning thereby, he was the officer who finally affirmed the adverse entries and hence, he could not have decided the representation as filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation ought to have been decided by some authority higher than the authority who made the adverse remarks. In the present case, even though the officer deciding the representation was a higher authority being the Special Secretary but at the relevant point of time he was the Accepting Officer and the same person who made the adverse entries. In such a situation, the representation of the petitioner ought to have been forwarded to some other officer for decision.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-State while relying upon Instruction No.16 of Annual Performance Appraisal Report Instructions of 1976 governing the ACR reports, submits that the notice to file representation against the adverse entry is required to be given by the same officer who had made the remark and even the representation is required to be filed before to the same officer. Further, it is the same officer who is under an obligation to decide the representation and communicate it to the incumbent. Therefore, the rejection of the representation by the same officer is totally in consonance with law.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Without delving into the other issues raised by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the representation of the petitioner by the same authority i.e. the Accepting Authority who accepted the adverse entries made by the Reviewing Authority, is totally erroneous and contrary to the basic principles of law.

8. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors; (2008)8 SCC 725, a representation ought to be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar.

9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Jagidsh Prasad vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan , Secretariat and Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3444/2013 (decided on 25.07.2023) while emphasizing on the objective of the remarks made in the ACR held as under:

“15. Remarks in the APARS of a government servant play a significant role in his service career. While good remarks may help him gain timely promotion, adverse remarks may delay such promotion and in some cases, may even permanently end the chances of such promotion. It is true that the complianc