LexTHE STATE OF HARYANA versus ASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 393 : 2024 INSC 190 The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3959 of 2024) 11 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which approved the decision of Accepting Authority altering the Personal Appraisal Report score under All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007. Headnotes The Principal Secretary, State of Haryana challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh branch, Chandigarh the decision of the Accepting Authority, Chief Minister of Haryana downgrading his Performance Appraisal Report (the “PAR”) score - No provision in the PAR Rules indicating that a contravention thereof would render the PAR in question invalid or would be met with any identified immediate consequence. Held: When a provision declares no serious consequences for non-adherence of timelines then it becomes directory- The Authority has met the timelines prescribed under Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules and complied with the mandatory timelines prescribed - No reason to expunge the remarks and overall grades awarded to 1st Respondent. [Paras 19-21] Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Whether the interference of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the High Court was warranted – Principles discussed. Held: The overall grading and assessment of IAS Officers requires an in-depth understanding of different aspects of an administrative functionary such as their personality traits, tangible and quantifiable professional parameters which may include inter alia the competency and ability to execute projects; adaptability; problem- 394 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports solving and decision-making skills; planning and implementation capabilities; and the skill to formulate and evaluate strategy - High court erred in entering into a specialized domain, i.e., evaluating the competency of an IAS officer - No requisite expertise and administrative expertise to conduct such an evaluation - Appeal allowed [Paras 27-28 & 31] Case Law Cited Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, [2019] 6 SCR 950 : (2019) 14 SCC 81; State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Linde India Limited & Anr, [2022] 17 SCR 858 : (2022) 107 GSTR 381 - Relied on. Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited, [2002] Supp. 4 SCR 517 : (2003) 2 SCC 111; May George v. Tahsildar, [2010] 7 SCR 204 : (2010) 13 SCC 98 - Referred to. Dev Dutt v. Union of India : [2008] 8 SCR 174 : (2008) 8 SCC 725 - Distinguished. List of Acts Constitution of India; All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007. List of Keywords IAS Officer; Effect of non-adherence of timelines; Power of High Court under Art. 226. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3959 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2019 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.317 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Lokesh Sinhal, Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.Gs., Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G., Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Samar Vijay Singh, Nikunj Gupta, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Vaibhav Yadav, Shivang Jain, Ms. Payal Gupta, Ms. Nitikaa Guptha, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 395 The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. ` Shreenath A. Khemka, Ganesh A. Khemka, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. Introduction1 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal preferred by the State of Haryana seeks to assail the correctness of an order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (the “High Court”) in a writ petition bearing number CWP 317 of 2019 (O&M) wherein the High Court set aside an order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (the “CAT”) and, accordingly (i) expunged the opinion of the Accepting Authority; and (ii) restored (a) the opinion of the Reviewing Authority; and (b) the grade awarded by the Reviewing Authority i.e., 9.92 qua Respondent No. 1’s performance appraisal report under the provisions of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (the “PAR Rules”) (the “Impugned Order”). Factual Matrix 3. On 07.06.2017, Respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.