The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary by which the claim of the petitioner for being extended the benefits of financial progression under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was rejected, held that entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good, or very good entry.
Brief Facts:
The government decided to consider the cases of its employees for granting promotion on the basis of entries made into their Annual Confidential Report and the benchmarks. The benefit of the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme was not granted to the petitioner. A petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the representation to be filed by the petitioner within a period of five weeks by a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation. The promotion of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s marking in the annual confidential report was not as per the benchmark prescribed for the said purpose.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme in the year 2009 itself and particularly after 26.08.2010 when the order of punishment imposing censure and dereliction of duty was quashed, by the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court. Further, he contended that the respondent authorities had never communicated about any entry like ‘not up to the benchmarks’ in the petitioner’s ACR.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that it transpires that the below benchmark entries in the ACR had not communicated to the petitioner on any occasion prior to passing of the final order which is impugned. Therefore, the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation before the authorities against the said entry ‘below benchmark’ in his ACR
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the decision for grant of promotion by virtue of entries made in the ACR was taken on 30.03.2011 for the first time and prior to that there was no such restriction. It is also apparent from the pleading that the petitioner became entitled to promotion in 2009 but due to the punishment order, his case was not considered.
The Court observed that entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good, or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways: (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future; (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified and pray for its upgradation.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order is set aside. Case Title: Gupteshwar Prasad v The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anshuman
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4882 of 2018 of 2017
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Krishna
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
