Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)

U.P. Jal Nigam & Others vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Others on 31 January, 1996

It has been held in case titled as 'State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra' reported in 1997 (4) SCC 7 and in case titled as 'U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain' reported in 1996 (2) SCC 363 that if graded entry in an APAR of an employee is going a step down like falling from „Very Good‟ to „Good‟ and though that may ordinarily be not an adverse entry since both being a positive grading, yet law enjoins upon the authorities Reviewing/Accepting APAR‟s in such a situation are bound to record reasons for such downgrading and also to inform the employee of the change.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 245 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997

It has been held in case titled as 'State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra' reported in 1997 (4) SCC 7 and in case titled as 'U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain' reported in 1996 (2) SCC 363 that if graded entry in an APAR of an employee is going a step down like falling from „Very Good‟ to „Good‟ and though that may ordinarily be not an adverse entry since both being a positive grading, yet law enjoins upon the authorities Reviewing/Accepting APAR‟s in such a situation are bound to record reasons for such downgrading and also to inform the employee of the change.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 247 - Full Document

Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008

If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct is conduct or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it corrected by appropriate representation to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and standards of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes successful tool to manage. The Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 held that whether an entry is adverse or not, depends upon its actual impact on the employee's career and not on its terminology. Even a "good" entry can be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion. In the present case, the entry i.e. "good" in the APAR of the petitioner will be adverse inasmuch as the benchmark for promotion to the post of Additional Director General is "very good'. All the gradings whether "very good", "good", "average", "fair" and "poor" required to be communicated to the employee working in Govt. offices and statutory bodies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1116 - M Katju - Full Document

S. Ramachandra Raju vs State Of Orissa on 31 August, 1994

7. Before proceeding further in the matter, a reference to the position of law pertaining to writing of the APR of employees would be relevant. The consistent view of the Apex Court has been in the series of judgments including in case titled as 'S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa' reported in 1994(3) SCC 424 that the writing an APR has to be objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner, in that, in certain services the career prospects of the officer/employee largely depends upon the work and character assessment made by the Reporting Officer and in the event the APR‟s are not written constructively by adopting fair, objective, dispassionate, the prospects and career of such an officer/employee would be put to great jeopardy. It has also been held that the writing of APRs objectively and constructively would pave a way for an erring officer/employee to improve the efficiency in the service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 166 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1