LexDALJIT SINGH GREWAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 11S.C.R.533 DALJIT SINGH GREWAL V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.6532 of2015) AUGUST21, 2015 [V.GOPALA GOWDA ANDS.A. BOBDE, JJ.] A B Service Law - Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) - Adverse entry in - Denial of promtion due to the adverse c entires - Held: In view of the facts of the case downgrading the performance of the appellant-official in his ACR for the relevant periods by respondent No. 4 was not valid as the same was done without any authority or competence and was also tainted with malafides - Therefore the order denying D promotional benefits by the rspondents-Departmenet from the year 2001-2002 is liable to be set aside- Respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the appellant so as to give him promotional post notionally to get pensionary benefits since he had already been prematurely retired. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. According to the Punjab Home Guard Class- II Rules, 1988, the appointment to the promotional F post is to be made on seniority-cum-merit basis. As per the ACRs placed on record, the appellant has fulfilled the aforesaid requirement of seniority-cum-merit by securing 14 marks, as per the Instructions by Letter No. 4/6/2000-3 PPI/ 13720 dated 6.9.2001, in relation to all G aspects entered in the ACR. [Para 39] [553-8-D] 2. The overall grading of the ACR for the period 2000-2001 was based upon the observations made by 533 H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A the Reporting Authority, Reviewing Authority and final Accepting Authority. As per the entries made by respondent No. 4, he had agreed to the overall grading i.e. "He is a very good and responsible officer" as given by the Accepting Authority. In such a case, he could not B have downgraded the overall grading in the ACR by using the words "an average officer". Further, if the comments made on 20.05.2004 by respondent No. 4 on the ACR for the year 2000-2001 are being sought to justify. the stand of denial of promotion to the appellant to the C post in question, then the clarification needs to take effect from that date, i.e 20.05.2004. In such a case, the appellant was to be assigned 3 marks as per the instructions for the year 2003, when he was ignored for 0 the promotion for the first time. [Para 37] [551-F-H; 552- A-B] 3. The representations against the adverse remarks for the period 1999-2000 were rejected by respondent No. 4. The appellant had challenged the same by filing E Civil Suit, wherein respondent No. 4 was impleaded. The Civil Suit was decreed in favour of the appellant. The said judgment and decree passed in favour of the appellant has not been implemented by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, despite having attained finality, which clearly reflects the F fact that respondent No.4 was not fair in considering him for promotion to the post of Battalion Commander as provided under Rule 8(2) of the Rules.[Para 39] [552-G-H; 553-A-B] G 4. As per the record, the appellant was given grade 'A+' for the year 2001-2002, but only 1 mark was assigned, whereas according to the executive Instructions, the grade 'A+' is to be assigned 4 marks. If 4 marks had been assigned for the ACR of the appellant, then he would H have scored 12 marks at the time of consideration for DALJIT SINGH GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 535 promotion in the year 2003, whereas admittedly, the A appellant was required to achieve only 10 marks in order to be promoted to the post of Battallion Commander. Hence, if the calculation of marks made by the respondents on the various aspects in the ACR of the appellant is believed to be true, then also he has achieved B the required benchmark. The action of the respondent No. 4 in deliberately ignoring the claim of the appellant is vitiated in law as the same is contrary to the Rules and records of ACR for the relevant period and Instructions issued by the ·state Government laying C down certain guiding principles. [Para 40] [554-B-E] 5. A perusal of the copy of the ACR for the period 2003-2004 reflects a true picture of the injustice that has been perpetrated against the appellant. The ACR has o been written by respondent No. 4 who was the Reporting Authority as the Divisional Commandant. The very same officer was also the Reviewing Authority as Deputy Commandant General. Further, the same officer also happened to be the Final Accepting Authority as the E Commandant General. The fact t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.