Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008
2007 2008. While giving the aforesaid findings
and while arriving at the aforesaid final conclusion, the Tribunal as well as
the High Court have heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the
case of Sukhdeo (supra); Dev Dutt (supra); Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar
(supra) and Sukhdev
Sukhdev Singh (supra). However, on considering the aforesaid
decisions, it emerges that in the aforesaid cases, the adverse ACRs either
were not communicated at all and/or on facts found to be inconsistent and
suffe
suffering from lack of bona fides.
Sukhdev Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 April, 2013
2007 2008. While giving the aforesaid findings
and while arriving at the aforesaid final conclusion, the Tribunal as well as
the High Court have heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the
case of Sukhdeo (supra); Dev Dutt (supra); Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar
(supra) and Sukhdev
Sukhdev Singh (supra). However, on considering the aforesaid
decisions, it emerges that in the aforesaid cases, the adverse ACRs either
were not communicated at all and/or on facts found to be inconsistent and
suffe
suffering from lack of bona fides.
Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006
9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of
India and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 699 and K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank
of India and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 120 and the other decisions of this
Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a
good law."
K.M.Mishra vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 16 September, 2008
9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of
India and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 699 and K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank
of India and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 120 and the other decisions of this
Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a
good law."
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2008
2007 2008. While giving the aforesaid findings
and while arriving at the aforesaid final conclusion, the Tribunal as well as
the High Court have heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the
case of Sukhdeo (supra); Dev Dutt (supra); Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar
(supra) and Sukhdev
Sukhdev Singh (supra). However, on considering the aforesaid
decisions, it emerges that in the aforesaid cases, the adverse ACRs either
were not communicated at all and/or on facts found to be inconsistent and
suffe
suffering from lack of bona fides.
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
13. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR
1978 SC 597 that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In
our opinion, the non-communication
non communication of an entry in the A.C.R. of a public
servant is arbitrary because it deprives the concerned employee from
making a representation against it and praying for its up
up-gradation. In our
opinion, every
every entry in the Annual Confidential Report of every employee
under the State, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or other service
(except the military) must be communicated to him, so as to enable him to
make a representation against it, because non
non-communication deprives the
employee of the opportunity of making a representation against it which
may affect his chances of being promoted (or get some other
Page 11 of 16
Item No.62 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1183/2023
benefits).
State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997
Moreover, the object of writing the confidential report and
making entries in them is toto give an opportunity to a public servant to
improve his performance, vide State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra
1997 (4) SCC 7. Hence such non-communication
communication is, in our opinion,
arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. 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
non-communication of
Page 12 of 16
Item No.62 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1183/2023
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
representation
upgradation. Hence non-communication
non communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has
been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka
Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbarbitrariness violates Article 14 of
the Constitution.