Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Jai Parkash Gupta on 13 May, 2014
ª, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2008
Union of India & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jai Parkash Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents
O R D E R
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.11.2006 of the Guwahati High Court, in Writ Petition No. 9159 of 2004, by which the High Court held that in case the ACRs of an officer written earlier and stood downgraded, the same should be communicated to the officer so that he can file his representation to upgrade the same. While deciding the said case, the High Court had directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the respondent herein in accordance with law for the purpose of promotion to higher post, which requires the ACRs of five assessment years have to be seen. The officer has been assessed ‘very good’ for two years and ‘good’ for 3 years and this entry of ‘good’ had never been communicated to the said officer. The High Court, thus, passed the order in favour of the officer affirming the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which was challenged before the High Court.
2. We have heard Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and 1 perused the records.
3. The judgment of the High Court is in conformity and in consonance with the judgment of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 69; Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725; and K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank of India & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 120. The aforesaid three judgments have been approved by a larger bench in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 566 and observed as under:
"8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725, that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR--poor, fair, average, good or very good--must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 69 and K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank of India, (2008) 9 SCC 120 and the other decisions of this Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down good law."
4. The said three Judge Bench judgment has subsequently been followed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2872 of 2010 - Union of India v. A.K. Goel & Ors., decided 2 on 20.11.2013.
5. In view of the above, we do not see any force in the appeal. It lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
....................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ...................J. (A.K. SIKRI) New Delhi, May 13, 2014 3 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 283 OF 2008 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS JAI PARKASH GUPTA AND ANR. Respondent(s) Date: 13/05/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI [VACATION BENCH] For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Verma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Rachna Gupta,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in terms of the signed order. No order as to costs.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (M.S. NEGI) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file) 4