UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus S.K. GOEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 12-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
.J.r 
v. 
S.K. GOEL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 12, 2007 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law:. 
,k-
c 
Annual Confidential Report (ACR)-Adverse entries and remarks in-
Downgrading of ACR-Communication of-Requirement-Proceedings and 
recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)-Interference 
with-DPC was constituted for promotion to the post of Commissioner of 
Customs and Central Excise (CCE)-One of the Grade A officers of the 
Customs and Central Excise services represented that his ACRs for the years 
D 1994-95 had not been properly graded or considered by DPC-He also 
claimed that the lower grading given to him by the Reviewing Officer on one 
ACR was not communicated to him-The representation of the officer was 
f-
rejected-The officer was not promoted to the post of CCE-The Tribunal 
•, 
dismissed the application filed by the officer and held that it was not necessary 
to communicate the remarks/grading which were not adverse or not below 
E the bench mark prescribed for promotion to a particular post-The High 
Court allowed the writ petition filed by the officer-Correctness of-Held: 
Only adverse entries and remarks are to be communicated and there is no 
provision to communicate the downgrading of ACR to a Government 
employee-It is not necessary to communicate the remarks/grading which 
F are not adverse or not below the bench mark prescribed for promotion-
There will ordinarily be no interference by the courts of law in the proceedings 
1-
and recommendations of the DPC unless such DPC meetings are held illegally 
or ;n gross violation of the rules-High Court judgment set aside. 
The first respondent and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 joined the Indian 
G Customs and Central Excise Service as Grade A Officers on probation as 
Assistant Collectors of Central Excise and were duly confirmed in Group A 
service. The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were placed higher in the order of 
r'-
seniority. The first respondent was promoted on an ad hoc basis and was 
subsequently regularized. 
H 
432 
U.0.1. v. S.K. GOEL 
433 
..,.l 
A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted for A 
promotion to the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. The 
first respondent represented against the seniority assigned to him and he 
claimed that his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 1994-
1995 had not been properly graded or considered by the DPC and that the 
lower grading given to him by the Reviewing Officer on one ACR was not 
communicated to him. The appellant rejected the representation of the first B 
respondent and promoted respondents No. 2 to 5 to the post of Commissioner 
of Central Excise and Customs. 
Being aggrieved, the first respondent filed an application before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said application C 
and held that it was not necessary to communicate the remarks/grading which 
were not adverse or not below the bench mark prescribed for promotion to a 
particular post. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the first 
respondent. Hence the appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the High Court had erred in its failure/omission to .take into 
consideration the government instructions for regulating/recording of ACR 
which provide for only communication of adverse remarks in the ACRs? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, respondent No. 1 had received no adverse 
remarks and had rather been graded at the level of the prescribed bench mark 
of 'above average'. Therefore, there was neither any onus nor requirement 
upon the appellant to have communicated the ACR entry to respondent No. 1. 
D 
E 
(Para 23) (443-D) 
F 
Manik Chand v. U.0.1. (2002) 3 ATJ 268, Union of India v. Major 
Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368, R.L. Butail v. Union of India [1970] 2 
SCC 876, State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, ( 1996) 8 SCC 7.62 and State 
of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Mishra, AIR (1997) SC 367, referred to. 
2.1. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) followed the 
prescribed norms as also applied its discretion vested in it to determine the 
comparative merit of the eligible officers and tbereafter made recommendations 
in order of merit There was thus no occasion or justification for interference 
in the order passed by the appellants, as upheld by the Tribunal. [Para 241 
G 
(443-EJ H 
A 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. 
UP. Jal Nigam 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.