Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Malice and Bias in ACR Recording - Several cases establish that adverse ACR entries recorded out of malice, bias, or extraneous considerations are legally questionable and can be challenged. For example, Ishwar Singh Duhan's below average ACR was found vitiated by malice, which contaminated the grading ["Anil Kumar Akarnia VS Union of India - Delhi"], ["ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Delhi"], ["ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Delhi"], ["ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Delhi"]-2825_2012), ["RAJINDER SINGH SEHRAWAT VS UNION OF INDIA - Delhi"]. Similarly, allegations of bias against reporting officers were upheld where adverse remarks lacked basis and were made with malice (Sachdeva case) ["State Of Punjab VS T. S. Sachdeva, Excise And Taxation Officer, Sales Tax Check Barrier - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Devinder Kaur vs Ut Administration Of Chandigarh - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Lal Bahadur Singh vs The Union of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Right to Correct or Quash Malicious ACRs - Courts recognize the jurisdiction of civil courts and tribunals to quash or direct correction of ACRs made maliciously or without basis. It was held that civil Court has jurisdiction to quash adverse remarks recorded in one's ACR if they are absolutely uncalled for and based upon malice ["State Of Punjab VS T. S. Sachdeva, Excise And Taxation Officer, Sales Tax Check Barrier - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Devinder Kaur vs Ut Administration Of Chandigarh - Central Administrative Tribunal"]. In several instances, courts directed authorities to consider proper ACRs after identifying malicious entries or errors, emphasizing the importance of fair assessment ["COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA VS HLAWNDO VANLALHUTA S/o SRI ROSIAMA - Gauhati"], ["S S Sharma vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Delhi"].
Criteria for Valid ACRs - Valid adverse remarks must be supported by material evidence and made in good faith, not on suspicion or bias. Remarks based solely on suspicion or unsupported allegations were deemed invalid, as in the case where suspicion cannot take the place of proof ["State Of Punjab VS T. S. Sachdeva, Excise And Taxation Officer, Sales Tax Check Barrier - Punjab and Haryana"], or where remarks were recorded without proper consultation or basis ["PRABIR CHANDRA KAKATI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS - Gauhati"]. The recording of ACRs is a subjective process, but courts have held that remarks recorded without consultation or basis are liable to be expunged ["PRABIR CHANDRA KAKATI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS - Gauhati"].
Impact of Malicious ACRs on Career and Promotions - Malicious entries can adversely affect an officer's career, including promotion prospects. Courts have directed the upgrading or expunging of adverse entries to prevent prejudice, e.g., the correction of the ACR grading should have been left to the authorities ["COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA VS HLAWNDO VANLALHUTA S/o SRI ROSIAMA - Gauhati"], adverse entries in the ACR for certain years were found to be based on malice and ordered to be expunged ["Lal Bahadur Singh vs The Union of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Evidence and Burden of Proof - Allegations of malice require substantive evidence. Courts have emphasized that malice in fact or law must be proved with concrete evidence and that allegations of malice against multiple officers over years need substantive proof ["ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Delhi"], ["S S Sharma vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan - Central Administrative Tribunal"]. Failure to substantiate claims results in dismissal of the challenge.
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts consistently recognize that ACRs recorded with malice, bias, or without proper basis are illegal and can be challenged in courts. They uphold the right of officers to seek correction or quashing of such entries, provided there is sufficient evidence to prove malice or unsupported remarks. The process of recording ACRs must be fair, evidence-based, and free from extraneous influences, as deviations can significantly impact an officer's career.
In the realm of service law and judicial proceedings in India, Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) play a pivotal role in career progression, promotions, and performance evaluations. But what happens when an employee or party alleges that an ACR was tainted by malice? Can such records be corrected simply on the basis of malice? This question often arises in disputes involving government employees, judicial officers, and public servants. Typically, correction mechanisms are narrow, focusing on clerical slips rather than substantive issues like wrongful intent.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, key judicial precedents, and practical implications. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be considered specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
ACRs, or Annual Confidential Reports (also known as Annual Performance Appraisal Reports in modern contexts), assess an officer's performance. Adverse entries can derail promotions, as seen in cases like those involving ITBP Commandants or judicial officers ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-2825_2012).
Correction of records or judgments is governed by provisions like Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These allow courts to rectify clerical or accidental errors in judgments, decrees, or orders. For example:
Section 362 of CrPC is meant only to correct a clerical or arithmetical error and It cannot be used for correction on merits since earlier order was patently erroneous. Mohammed Zakir VS Shabana - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 768
However, these provisions do not extend to errors allegedly stemming from malice, bias, or improper motives.
The core query—ACR correction on basis of malice—strikes at the heart of procedural vs. substantive remedies. Courts have consistently ruled that corrections are limited to clerical, typographical, or inadvertent mistakes and cannot address malice Mohammed Zakir VS Shabana - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 768State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Imtiaz Hussain - 2005 8 Supreme 488.
Malice refers to wrongful intent, improper motive, or ill-will, which is a substantive fact, not a mere slip W. B. State Electricity Board VS Dilip Kumar Ray - 2006 9 Supreme 883. Attempting correction on this ground would essentially re-open the merits of the case, which is impermissible:
Correction of clerical errors is limited to mistakes of typing, calculation, or accidental omission, and cannot be used to modify the substantive or merit-based aspects of a judgment. State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474
In service law, malice often surfaces in allegations against Reporting or Reviewing Officers. For instance, in a case involving ITBP officer Ishwar Singh Duhan, the petitioner claimed the Reporting Officer was actuated by malice which vitiated the 'below average' ACR grading ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.ANIL KUMAR AKARNIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-2825_2012). Such claims require proof of extraneous reasons, bias, or personal animosity, not just dissatisfaction with grading.
Malice, as a wrongful intent or improper motive, is a matter of substantive fact and not a clerical or accidental error. W. B. State Electricity Board VS Dilip Kumar Ray - 2006 9 Supreme 883
Courts demand concrete evidence; mere better performance in prior/subsequent years isn't enough unless malice or bias is shown LT. COL. M. P. S. GILL VS UNION OF INDIA - 2005 Supreme(Del) 24.
Procedural corrections under Section 152 CPC or equivalents are strictly confined:- Permissible: Typographical errors, arithmetical mistakes, accidental omissions.- Not Permissible: Errors on merits, deliberate misconduct, or malice-driven decisions Mohammed Zakir VS Shabana - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 768State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474.
In one ruling:
Corrections are not permissible if they involve correction on merits or to rectify a wrongful motive. Mohammed Zakir VS Shabana - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 768
This prevents impermissible review or re-judgment. For ACRs, downgrading due to disciplinary proceedings or subjective assessments isn't automatically correctable unless proven mala fide through substantive channels Rabindra Nath Kalita VS State of Assam - 2017 Supreme(Gau) 1022.
Indian courts have reinforced these boundaries across contexts:
These cases illustrate that while malice allegations arise frequently, corrections remain off-limits; substantive remedies prevail.
Rare exceptions exist for blatant procedural violations, but malice alone doesn't qualify. Instead:- Appeals or Review Petitions: Challenge merits directly.- Writ Petitions under Article 226: For arbitrariness or mala fides with evidence.- Representations and DPCs: Seek upgradation via review boards Rabindra Nath Kalita VS State of Assam - 2017 Supreme(Gau) 1022.- Expunction Applications: For unwarranted remarks affecting ACRs Parkash Singh Teji VS Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 215.
Allegations of malice or wrongful intent must be established through substantive evidence and are not subject to correction under procedural error correction laws. Mohammed Zakir VS Shabana - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 768
Courts advise restricting applications to true clerical errors.
In conclusion, while allegations of malice in ACRs can feel deeply personal, the law draws a clear line: correction provisions safeguard procedural purity, not revisit motives. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed, and protect your record proactively.
#ACRCorrection #ServiceLaw #LegalMalice
Ishwar Singh Duhan, who held the rank of Commandant, and that he was actuated by malice which vitiated the “below average” ACR grading, recorded and affirmed by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer. He seeks appropriate directions for the quashing of such ACR. ... The letter required correction of each of those deficiencies. The said document/advisory itself facially substantiates the petitioner’s allegation that the initiation of ACR by the third respondent was not warranted as he has every ....
which is the sine-qua-non to examine the question as good but the then Reporting Officer Ashok Dhawan the then Reporting Officer was having personal Officer, no presumption could be drawn against the against the petitioner recorded adverse remarks in his ACR
Ishwar Singh Duhan, who held the rank of Commandant, and that he was actuated by malice which vitiated the “below average” ACR grading, recorded and affirmed by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer.. ... The letter required correction of each of those deficiencies. ... The respondents contend that the ACR grading was correctly recorded. ... The ITBP does not deny that the third respondent initiated the process of ACR grading on 29.03.2006. 5. ... The result of the ....
Ishwar Singh Duhan, who held the rank of Commandant, and that he was actuated by malice which vitiated the “below average” ACR grading, recorded and affirmed by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer.. ... The letter required correction of each of those deficiencies. ... The respondents contend that the ACR grading was correctly recorded. ... The ITBP does not deny that the third respondent initiated the process of ACR grading on 29.03.2006. 5. ... The result of the ....
coming to the conclusion that the adverse representations that he did not take the should be made separately at the appropriate place of the report; the correction ... The file would then come to DOP (A-1/ACR) for further action the Department had taken a decision to treat the remark made in the ACR
are not outcome of any bias or malice. ... It follows that adverse entries made in the petitioner s ACR for 1995-96 by the Reporting Officer (respondent No. 3) and endorsed by respondent No. 4 are the outcome of bias and malice. ... He has specifically pleaded that his earlier ACRs are excellent and the adverse entries made in his ACR for 1995-96 are outcome. . of bias and malice. Surprisingly, neither respondent no. 3 nor respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit to deny the said facts pleaded by the pet....
Thus, unless the reportee is able to show that his performance is underrated due to malice, bias or on account of some extraneous reasons during a particular year, mere citing of better ACR rating during the preceding or subsequent years would not provide a valid ground to upset the impugned ACR. ... The officers of a particular batch are considered together with same cut-off ACR and inputs and on the basis of individual profile and batch merit and, accordingly, approved/ not approved by the Selection B....
ACR placed on record and found that the allegations on the basis of which the petitioner claims that the adverse entries are made out of malice, extraneous considerations and It is the case of the petitioner that the adverse entries are Application seeking quashing of the adverse entries in the obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to have communicated the remarks which were entered in his ACR
The findings recorded by the Tribunal of malice and arbitrariness on the part of the Secretary as affirmed by the High Court are not warranted for two reasons. ... He relied upon para 2 of the judgment which runs as under: ... THE first respondent was downgraded at a certain point of time to which the Service Tribunal gave a correction. ... It is further reiterated and prayed for by the petitioner in this Hon ble court to set aside the ACRs for the period 1985-86 and ICR June - September 1986 on the grounds of subjectivity, malice and pre....
Reporting officer recorded adverse remarks on the basis of some suspicion. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. It was a case of "no evidence". No material was available with the reporting officer at the time of incorporating adverse remarks against him in his ACR for the year 1981-82. ... Remarks that the plaintiff is ineffective and incorrigible are also unknown to law and are based on malice. ... Sachdeva, his representation for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1981-82 was rejected. ....
In so far as the ACR of 2012-13 is concerned, his ACR was accepted “Good” on the alleged ground of disciplinary proceeding against him. The petitioner also contends that his ACRs for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 could not have been only graded as “Good” since he had performed outstanding services on being appointed as the Nodal Officer to submit Detailed Project Report (DPR) of Indo Bhutan Border Road under the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. With such claim, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the selection for promotion to the post of Additional C.E held on....
The judgments as referred by the respondents also carve out exceptional circumstances, wherein indulgence can be“shown under the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to secure the ends of justice. As such, at the time of filing of petition, Election Commission was not in picture and Commission could not have stood for the action of other respondents. Election Commission and other Councillors are not necessary party because no relief is sought against them. This is one such instance, where arbitrariness and illegality coupled with malice needs course-correcti....
His representation against the said adverse ACR was wrongly rejected. It was on the basis of said investigation in case FIR No.117, dated 02.07.2009.
We must bear in mind that theoretically, it is possible that because of reappraisal of the performance, the employee could be graded even higher then ‘very good’ which was the ACR entry specified by the impugned verdict. The Tribunal after due assessment of the service record and weighing the views of the reporting officer found that, the negative entry for the purpose of promotion, was not warranted by the standard of performance, rendered by the employee. On this basis the Tribunal found justification for upward correction of the grading in the ACR of the applicant. But t....
Therefore, he submitted his representation to the High Court for review of the said ACR. He reliably came to know that the said ACR has been downgraded on the basis of the remarks in the judgment dated 06.07.2006 passed in R.F.A. No. 178 of 2006. If the said remarks in the judgment dated 06.07.2006 are not expunged, it would affect his future prospects and if the same are allowed to stay and the ACR is not re-casted, the appellant would suffer substantial loss in future as he has left with eight years of service for superannuation and he is in the zone of consideration for ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
