LexSUKHDEV SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1004 SUKHDEV SINGH ·v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.5892 of 2006) APRIL 23, 2013 [R.M. LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law: C Annual Confidential Repot (ACR) - Communication of the entry therein - To the Public servant (other than military service) - Matter refeffed by Division Bench of Supreme court to Three Judge Bench, finding inconsistency as regards the law laid down on the issue, by the judgments passed in *U.P. D Jal Nigam case and **Major Bahadur Singh case - Subsequently, Supreme Court, in ***Dev Dutt case held that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period - Held: The view taken in Dev Dutt case is leal/y sound and thus approved - E Therefore, every entry in ACR whether it be poor, fair, average, good or very good, must be communicated to the public servant within a reasonable period. ***Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725: 2008 (8) SCR 174 - approved. F Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 16 sec 146 - relied on. Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (9) SC 69: 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 275; K.M. Misra vs. Central Bank of India and Ors. 2008 (9) SCC 120: 2008 (13) SCR G 534 - disapproved. *U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. 1996 (2) SCC 363: 1996 (1) SCR 1118; **Union of India and Anr. vs. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368: H 1004 SUKHOEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 1005 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 385; A.K. Praipak vs. Union of India A (1969) 2 sec 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of /ndia.(1978) 1 sec 248: 1978 (2) SCR 621; Union of India vs. Tutsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398: 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131; Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy (2005) 6 sec 321 : 2005 (3) SCR 81; State of Maharashtra vs. Public B Concern for Governance Trust (2007) 3 SCC 587: 2007 (1) SCR 87 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1996 (1) SCR 1118 referred to Para 1 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 385 referred to . Para 1 c 2008 (8) SCR 174 approved Para 3 1970 (1) SCR 457 referred to Para 3 1978 (2) SCR 621 referred to Para 3 1985 (2) Suppl. SeR 131 referred to Para l D 2005 (3) SCR 81 referred to Para 3 2007 (1) SCR 87 referred to Pa:-a 3 (2009) 16 sec 146 relied on Para 7 2006 (2) Suppl. SeR 275 disapproved Para 9 E 2008 (13) SCR 534 disapproved Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2005 of the High F Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 6620 CAT of 2003. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant. Mohan Parasaran, SG, D.L. Chidananda, Asha G Nair, S.N. Terdal, Harinder Mohan Singh, Shabana for the G Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. While granting leave on December 12, 2006, a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.) felt that H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R. A there was inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others1, and Union of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh2 and consequently, opined that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up for B consideration before us. 2. The referral order dated December 12, 2006 reads as follows: "The appellant herein was appointed as Deputy Director of Training on or about 13.11.1992. He attended a training C programme on Computer Applied Technology. He was sent on deputation on various occasions in 1997, 1998 and yet again in 2000. Indisputably, remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports throughout had been "Outstanding" or 'Very good". He, however, in two years i.e. 2000-2001 and D 2001-2002 obtained only "Good" remark in his Annual Confidential Report. The effect of such a downgrading falls for our consideration. The Union of India issued a Office Memorandum on 8.2.2002 wherein the Bench mark for promotion was directed to be "Very Good"in terms of E clause 3.2 thereof. It is also not in dispute that Guidelines for the Departmental Promotion Committees had been issued by the Union of India wherein, inter alia, it was directed as follows: " ..... 6.2.1 (b) The DPC should assess the suitability · F of the employees for promotion on the basis of their Service Records and with particular reference to the CRs for five preceding years irrespective of the qualifying serv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.