Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax & ... vs Pradeep Kumar Yadav & Another on 13 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1352, AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1454, 2020 (1) ALJ 700
Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH RESERVED Court No. - 3 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 4836 of 2018 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax & Registration & Another Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Jauhari Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
(As Per : Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.) Heard learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.661 of 2015 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others).
Facts in brief of the present case are that claimant/respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax) vide order dated 02.11.1991 issued by U. P. Public Service Commission. In order to award the ACR for the year 2009-10 (28.07.2009 to 31.03.2010), he submitted self-assessment-report. On the basis of the same, the recommending authority certified his integrity as excellent.
Thereafter, ACR of the claimant/respondent no.1 was downgraded by the reviewing authority and accepting authority without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him.
Aggrieved by the said fact, respondent no.1 preferred representation dated 25.10.2013, which was duly considered and disposed of by the State Government vide order dated 31.03.2014. Against the same, respondent no.1 filed a Claim Petition No.661 of 2015 before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow with the following main prayer :-
"Issue an order or direction and commanding the opposite parties to expunge the remarks and downgrading of the ACR of the claimant/respondent no.1 for the year 2009-10 awarded by the reviewing and accepting authority and also declaring the impugned ACR as nullity."
The Tribunal, by means of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2016, had allowed the claim petition with the following findings :-
"7. याची को प्रतिवेदक अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदत "उत्कृष्ट" श्रेणी के स्थान पर याची के सम्बन्ध में, स्वीकर्ता अधिकारी द्वारा अपना मन्तब्य अंकित करते समय यह उल्लेख किया गया कि समीक्षक अधिकारी द्वारा प्रतिवेदक अधिकारी के मन्तब्य से सामान्यतः सहमति व्यक्त की गयी है परन्तु श्रेणी डाउन ग्रेड करने के सम्बन्ध में कोई कारण नहीं दिये गये है अतः मैं प्रतिवेदक अधिकारी के मन्तब्य से सहमत हूँ | स्वीकर्ता अधिकारी के इस मन्तब्य में याची के विरुद्ध कोई प्रतिकूल टिप्पणी नहीं की गई है परन्तु उनके द्वारा किस आधार पर प्रतिवेदक अधिकारी द्वारा याची को प्रदत्त "उत्कृष्ट" श्रेणी को डाउन ग्रेड कर "अति उत्तम" श्रेणी प्रदान की गई का को उल्लेख नहीं किया गया |
8. राज्याधीन सेवाओं में अधिकारीयों/कर्मचारियों के वार्षिक गोपनीय प्रविष्टि के अंकन के सम्बन्ध में शासनादेश दिनांकित १२ जून, २००६ में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि यदि प्रतिवेदक प्राधिकारी द्वारा प्रदत्त ग्रेडिंग को समीक्षक प्राधिकारी द्वारा उच्च (अपग्रेड) अथवा निम्न (डाउन ग्रेड ) किया जाता है तो उसका पर्याप्त औचित्य दिया जाना अपरिहार्य होगा | उक्त व्यवस्था स्वीकर्ता प्राधिकारी के सम्बन्ध में bhi लागू होगी | वर्तमान प्रकरण में प्रतिवेदक अधिकारी द्वारा दी गयी "उत्कृष्ट" श्रेणी "उत्तम" श्रेणी में डाउन ग्रेड करने का कोई कारण समीक्षक अधिकारी द्वारा नहीं दिया गया है | इसी प्रकार स्वीकर्ता अधिकारी द्वारा, प्रतिवेदक अधिकारी द्वारा दी गयी "उत्कृष्ट" श्रेणी को "अति उत्तम" श्रेणी में डाउन ग्रेड करने का कोई कारण अंकित किया गया, बल्कि उनके द्वारा समीक्षक अधिकारी के द्वारा दी गई "उत्तम" श्रेणी को अपग्रेड कर दिया गया, जिसका कोई कारण उनके द्वारा उल्लिखित नहीं किया गया | उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर मैं इस निश्चित मत का हूँ कि विपक्षीगण द्वारा याची के प्रत्यावेदन का निस्तारण करते समय करे अनुभाग -२ उ.. प्र. शासन द्वारा जारी शासनादेश दिनांकित १२.०६.२००६ में दी गई व्यवस्था का सही ढंग से अनुपालन नहीं किया गया है | अतः याची द्वारा प्रस्तुत याचिका में बल है तदनुसार याचिका स्वीकार होने योग्य है |"
Learned Standing Counsel while challenging the impugned order submits that the Tribunal has erroneously allowed the claim petition in favour of the respondent no.1 and has quashed the order dated 31.03.2014 passed passed by State of U.P. regarding the A.C.R. of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 (28.07.2009 to 31.03.2010). The Tribunal has directed that downgrading of the ACR of the claimant/respondent no.1 for the year 2009-10 awarded by the reviewing and accepting authority shall be expunged and the same shall be read as "Excellent.". The Tribunal has further directed the petitioners to ensurer the compliance of the aforesaid order within time.
Further, submitted that the order dated 07.01.2006 passed by Sate Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
In the instant matter, by order dated 07.01.2016 the Tribunal had allowed the claim petition with the following observations made herein above taking into consideration the para 7 of the Government Order dated 12.06.2006, which reads as under :-
"" यदि प्रतिवेदक प्राधिकारी द्वारा प्रदत ग्रेडिंग को समीक्षक प्राधिकारी द्वारा उच्च ( आप ग्रेड) अथवा निम्न (डाउन ग्रेड) किया जाता है तो उसका प्रयाप्त औचित्य दिया जाना अपरिहार्य होता | उक्त व्यवस्था स्वीकारता प्राधिकारी के सम्बन्ध में भी लागू होगी | संदर्भित शाशनादेश संख्या 36 /1/78 -- कार्मिक-2 , दिनांक 26 फरवरी, 1979 संसंख्यक शाशनादेश संख्या दिनांक 28 मार्च, 1984 व् 5 मार्च, 1993 इस सीमा तक संशोधित समझे जायेंगे |"
In the case of Surendra Kumar Vs. State of U.p. and others, 2006 (30 UPLBEC 2834, Hon'ble this Court has held that "the Collector has not given any reason for converting the entry 'outstanding' to 'good' and thus the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and as such is not justifiable in law. In this case the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar. In the year 1995-96 and 1996-97 his immediate superior i.e. the Sub divisional magistrate awarded the outstanding annual entries but when these two annual entries reached before the reviewing officer i.e. the collector of the district he converted and downgraded them for 'outstanding' to 'good' without hearing the petitioner."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra Nigam and others, 1996 (2) SCC 363 has held as under:-
"The annual confidential reports are in the nature of an employee's assessment. They are evaluated at various stages of his career including promotions and extension of service at the age of 55 years. Illustratively if an employee legitimately earns an 'outstanding' report which at a later stage, at his back and without his knowledge is reduced to the level of 'satisfactory' without any communication to him. It would certainly effect him at one or the other stage of his career. In the case in hand the grading was lowered by an unauthorized person."
The said view was upheld by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others,2009(16 SCC 146 & Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2006, decided on 18.4.2013 reported in 2013 (9) SCC 566).
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 has held as under :-
"31. Thus, it is well settled that the rules of natural justice are flexible. The question to be asked in every case to determine whether the rules of natural justice have been violated is : have the authorities acted fairly ?
32. In Swadesh Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc., [1981] 2 SCR 533, this Court following the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 272 held that the soul of the rule (natural justice) is fair play in action.
33. In our opinion, fair play required that the respondent should have communicated the 'good' entry of 1993-94 to the appellant so that he could have an opportunity of making a representation praying for upgrading the same so that he could be eligible for promotion. Non-communication of the said entry, in our opinion, was hence unfair on the part of the respondent and hence violative of natural justice.
34. Originally there were said to be only two principles of natural justice : (1) the rule against bias and (2) the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). However, subsequently, as noted in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra) and K.L. Shephard's case (supra), some more rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice, e.g. the requirement to give reasons vide S.N. Mukherji v . Union of India, 1990 CriL J21 48a . In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (supra) (vide paragraphs 56 to 61) it was held that natural justice is part of Article 14 of the Constitution.
35. Thus natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is therefore open to the Court to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases.
36 . In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.
37. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.
38. We, however, make it clear that the above directions will not apply to military officers because the position for them is different as clarified by this Court in Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368 . But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to Government servants).
39. In Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) II LLJ 461 SC, this Court held that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. As observed in para 8 of the said judgment:
"8 Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values.
In para 12 of the said judgment it was observed:
What is meant by the term "principles of natural justice" is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton, L.J.) in R. v. Local Govt. Board (1914) 1 KB 160 : 83 L JKB 86 described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. v. Spackman (1943) AC 627 : (1943) 2 All ER 337, Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt "to force it into any Procrustean bed".
40. In State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 587, it was observed :
"39. In our opinion, when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play."
41. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
In view of reasons recorded herein above, we are of the view that the finding given by the Tribunal is perfectly valid being based on the judgment referred herein above and para 7 of the Government Order dated 12.06.2006, which deals with the controversy involved in the present case, the relevant portion of the same is being quoted herein below :-
"यदि प्रतिवेदक प्राधिकारी द्वारा प्रदत ग्रेडिंग को समीक्षक प्राधिकारी द्वारा उच्च ( आप ग्रेड) अथवा निम्न (डाउन ग्रेड) किया जाता है तो उसका प्रयाप्त औचित्य दिया जाना अपरिहार्य होता | उक्त व्यवस्था स्वीकारता प्राधिकारी के सम्बन्ध में भी लागू होगी | संदर्भित शाशनादेश संख्या 36 /1/78 -- कार्मिक-2 , दिनांक 26 फरवरी, 1979 संसंख्यक शाशनादेश संख्या दिनांक 28 मार्च, 1984 व् 5 मार्च, 1993 इस सीमा तक संशोधित समझे जायेंगे |"
Thus, we don't find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition.
In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 13.08.2019 Mahesh