Page 1

1

REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5892 OF 2006                 

SUKHDEV SINGH ...   APPELLANT(s)                         Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...   RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R  

While granting leave on December 12, 2006, a  

two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.)  

felt that there was inconsistency in the decisions of  

this Court in  U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat  

Chandra  Jain  and  others1,   and  Union  of  India  and  

another  vs.  Major  Bahadur  Singh2  and  consequently,  

opined  that  the  matter  should  be  heard  by  a  larger  

Bench.    This  is  how  the  matter  has  come  up  for  

consideration before us.

2. The  referral  order  dated  December  12,  2006  

reads as follows: “The  appellant  herein  was  appointed  as  Deputy  Director of Training on or about 13.11.1992. He  

1 (1996)2 SCC 363 2 (2006)1 SCC 368

Page 2

2

attended a training programme on Computer Applied  Technology. He was sent on deputation on various  occasions in  1997,1998 and yet again in 2000.  Indisputably, remarks in his Annual Confidential  Reports throughout had been “Outstanding” or “Very  good”. He, however, in two years i.e. 2000-2001  and 2001-2002 obtained only “Good” remark in his  Annual Confidential Report. The effect of such a  downgrading falls for our consideration. The Union  of India issued a Office Memorandum on 8.2.2002  wherein the Bench mark for promotion was directed  to be “Very Good”in terms of clause 3.2 thereof.  It is also not in dispute that  Guidelines for the  Departmental Promotion Committees had been issued  by the Union of India wherein, inter alia, it was  directed as follows:

“.....6.2.1(b) The DPC should assess the  suitability of the employees for promotion on the  basis of their Service Records and with particular  reference  to  the  CRs  for  five  preceding  years  irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed  in the Service/Recruitment Rules. The 'preceding  five  years'  for  the  aforesaid  purpose  shall  be  decided as per the guidelines contained in the DoP  &  T  O.M  No.22011/9/98-Estt.(D),  dated  8.9.1998,  which prescribe the Model Calendar for DPC read  with OM of even number, dated 16.6.2000.(If more  than one CR have been written for a particular  year, all the CRs for the relevant years shall be  considered together as the CR for one year}.”

The  question  as  to  whether  such  a  downgradation of Annual Confidential Report would  amount  to  adverse  remark  and  thus  it  would  be  required  to  be  communicated  or  not  fell  for  consideration before this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam  and  Ors.  Vs.  Prabhat  Chandra  Jain  and  Ors.  -  (1996) 2 SCC 363 in the following terms:

“ We need to explain these observations of the  High  Court.  The  Nigam  has  rules,  whereunder  an  adverse entry is required to be communicated to  the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an  entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam  that when the nature of the entry does not reflect  any  adverseness  that  is  not  required  to  be  communicated.  As  we  view  it  the  extreme  illustration given by the High Court may reflect  an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but  if the graded entry is of going a step down like  falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not  ordinarily be an adverse entry since both have a  positive  grading.  All  that  is  required  by  the  authority recording confidentials in the situation  is to record reasons for such downgrading on the

Page 3

3

personal file of the officer concerned and inform  him of the change in the form of an advice. If the  variation warranted be not permissible, then the  very  purpose  of  writing  annual  confidential  reports would be frustrated. Having achieved an  optimum level the employee on his part may slacken  in  his  work,  relaxing  secure  by  his  one-time  achievement.  This  would  be  an  undesirable  situation. All the same the sting of adverseness  must,  in  all  events,  not  be  reflected  in  such  variations,  as  otherwise,  they  shall  be  communicated as such. It may be emphasised that  even a positive confidential entry in a given case  can  perilously  be  adverse  and  to  say  that  an  adverse  entry  should  always  be  qualitatively  damaging may not be true. In the instant case we  have  seen  the  service  record  of  the  first  respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned.  The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This  cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner  the case of the first respondent and the system  that should prevail in the Jal Nigam we do not  find  any  difficulty  in  accepting  the  ultimate  result arrived at by the High Court.”

Several High Courts as also the Central  Administrative Tribunal in their various judgments  followed the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal  Nigam(supra),  inter  alia,  to  hold  that  in  the  event  the  said  adverse  remarks  are  not  communicated causing deprivation to the employee  to make an effective representation there against,  thus should be ignored. Reference may be made to  2003(1)  ATJ  130,  Smt.  T.K.Aryaveer Vs.Union  of  India & Ors, 2005(2) ATJ, Page 12, 2005(1) ATJ  509-A.B.  Gupta  Vs.  Union  of  India  &  Ors.  and  2003(2) SCT 514- Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India  & Ors.  

Our attention, however, has been drawn  by  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing for the respondents to a recent decision  of this Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Major  Bahadur Singh - (2006) 1 SCC 368 where a Division  Bench of this Court sought to distinguish  the  U.P. Jal Nigam(supra) stating as follows:

“8.  As  has  been  rightly  submitted  by  learned counsel for the appellants U.P. Jal Nigam  case has no universal application. The judgment  itself shows that it was intended to be meant only  for the employees of U.P.Jal Nigam only.”

With  utmost  respect,  we  are  of  the  opinion that the judgment of U.P.Jal Nigam(supra)  cannot  held  to  be  applicable  only  to  its  own

Page 4

4

employees. It has laid down a preposition of law.  Its  applicability  may  depend  upon  the  rules  entirely in the field but by it cannot be said  that  no  law  has  been  laid  down  therein.  We,  therefore,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  matter  should be heard  by a larger Bench.

3. Subsequent to the above two decisions, in the  

case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others3 , this  

Court had an occasion to consider the question about  

the communication of the entry in the ACR of a public  

servant (other than military service).  A two Judge  

Bench on elaborate and detailed consideration of the  

matter  and  also  after  taking  into  consideration  the  

decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam1 and principles  

of natural justice exposited by this Court from time to  

time particularly in A.K. Praipak vs. Union of India4;  

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India5;  Union of India vs.  

Tulsi Ram Patel6;  Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy7  and  

State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance  

Trust8  concluded  that every entry in the  ACR of  a  

public service must be communicated to him within a  

3  (2008)8 SCC 725 4  (1969)2 SCC 262 5  (1978)1 SCC 248 6  (1985)3 SCC 398 7  (2005)6 SCC 321 8  (2007)3 SCC 587

Page 5

5

reasonable period whether it is poor, fair, average,  

good or very good entry.  This is what this Court in  

paragraphs 17 & 18 of the report in Dev Dutt3  at page  

733:

“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-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. Hence 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 arbitrariness violates  Article 14 of the Constitution.

Thus it is not only when there is a benchmark but  in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor,  fair,  average,  good  or  very  good)  must  be  communicated to a public servant, otherwise there  is violation of the principle of fairness, which is  the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding  entry should be communicated since that would boost  the  morale  of  the  employee  and  make  him  work  harder.”

4. Then in paragraph 22 at page 734 of the report,  

this Court made the following weighty observations:

“It may be mentioned that communication of entries  and giving opportunity to represent against them is  particularly important on higher posts which are in  a pyramidical structure where often the principle  of  elimination  is  followed  in  selection  for  promotion, and even a single entry can destroy the  career  of  an  officer  which  has  otherwise  been  outstanding throughout. This often results in grave  injustice and heart-burning, and may shatter the

Page 6

6

morale of many good officers who are superseded due  to this arbitrariness, while officers of inferior  merit may be promoted.”

5. In paragraphs 37 & 41 of the report, this Court  

then observed as follows:

“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.

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.”

6. We are in complete agreement with the view in  

Dev Dutt3 particularly paragraphs 17, 18, 22, 37 & 41 as  

quoted above.  We approve the same.

7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in  Abhijit  

Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others9  followed  

9  (2009)16 SCC 146

Page 7

7

Dev Dutt3.  In paragraph 8 of the Report, this Court  

with reference to the case under consideration held as  

under: “Coming to the second aspect, that though  the  benchmark  “very  good”  is  required  for  being  considered for promotion admittedly the entry  of  “good”  was  not  communicated  to  the  appellant.  The entry of 'good' should have  been  communicated  to  him  as  he  was  having  “very good” in the previous year.  In those  circumstances,  in  our  opinion,  non- communication  of  entries  in  the  ACR  of  a  public  servant  whether  he  is  in  civil,  judicial, police or any other service (other  than  the  armed  forces),  it  has  civil  consequences because it may affect his chances  for promotion or get other benefits.  Hence,  such non-communication would be arbitrary and  as  such  violative  of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.   The  same  view  has  been  reiterated  in  the  above  referred  decision  relied on by the appellant.  Therefore, the  entries  “good”  if  at  all  granted  to  the  appellant, the same should not have been taken  into  consideration  for  being  considered  for  promotion to the higher grade.  The respondent  has no case that the appellant had ever been  informed of the nature of the grading given to  him.”

8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt 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

Page 8

8

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 vs. Union of India and others10  and K.M. Mishra  

vs. Central Bank of India and others11  and the other  

decisions  of  this  Court  taking  a  contrary  view  are  

declared to be not laying down  a good law.

11. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we  

1 0   (2006) 9 SCC 69 1 1   (2008) 9 SCC 120

Page 9

9

are  informed  that  the  appellant  has  already  been  

promoted. In view thereof, nothing more is required to  

be done. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as  

to costs.  However, it will be open to the appellant to  

make a representation to the concerned authorities for  

retrospective promotion  in view of the legal position  

stated by us.  If such a representation is made by the  

appellant,  the  same  shall  be  considered  by  the  

concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with  

law.      

11 I.A.  No.  3  of  2011  for  intervention  is  

rejected.  It will be open to the applicant to pursue  

his legal remedy in accordance with law.      

             ......................J.                             (R.M. LODHA)

            ......................J.

                  (MADAN B. LOKUR)

......................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)

  NEW DELHI    APRIL 23, 2013. ITEM NO.102               COURT NO.4             SECTION IV

Page 10

10

           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). 5892 OF 2006

SUKHDEV SINGH                                     Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for Intervention/Impleadment and office report )

Date: 23/04/2013  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH    

For Appellant(s)                          Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Mr. Asgha G. Nair, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv.

Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh ,Adv Ms. Shabana, Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Civil  Appeal  is  dismissed  with  no  order  as  to  

costs. I.A. No. 3 of 2011 is rejected.  

Pending  application(s),  if  any,  stands  disposed  

of.

(Pardeep Kumar) Court Master

(Renu Diwan)  Court Master  

[SIGNED REPORTABLE  ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]