Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anil Kumar, was an employee of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). He was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme with effect from 10 May 2011, and by not being promoted to the post of Senior Controller of Administration/Senior Deputy Secretary in Pay Band-4 for vacancies in 2013-2014. He moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, which dismissed his grievance on the ground that he did not meet the benchmark of 'Very Good' for financial upgradation and that CSIR, being an autonomous body, was not bound by circulars of the Union of India. The Tribunal also held that the failure to communicate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) could not be questioned as CSIR had adopted the requirement of conveying ACRs from a future date. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed this view. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the ACRs for the years 2003-2004, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 were below the benchmark and were communicated to the appellant only on 9 July 2014, after the Screening Committee had already met on 21 April 2014 for financial upgradation. The appellant submitted a representation but it was not considered. Relying on the decisions in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that every entry in an ACR must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period to enable representation, and non-communication is arbitrary and violates natural justice. This principle applies to all instrumentalities of the State, including autonomous bodies like CSIR. The Court set aside the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, and directed that the appellant be given an opportunity to submit a representation within four weeks, which the respondents must consider and decide within two months. If the ACRs are upgraded, the case for financial upgradation and promotion shall be considered afresh with consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Annual Confidential Reports - Communication of ACRs - Every entry in ACR, whether poor, fair, average, good or very good, must be communicated to the public servant within a reasonable period to enable representation - Non-communication is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice and transparency - Directions apply to all instrumentalities of the State including autonomous bodies like CSIR - Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013) 9 SCC 566 followed (Paras 4-5). B) Service Law - Financial Upgradation - MACP Scheme - Benchmark of 'Very Good' - Non-communication of ACRs deprived appellant of opportunity to make representation before Screening Committee - Appellant entitled to submit representation within four weeks, and respondents to consider and decide within two months - If ACRs upgraded, financial upgradation to be considered afresh (Paras 6-7). C) Service Law - Promotion - Regular Promotion - Non-communication of ACRs and non-consideration of representation - If ACRs upgraded, case for promotion to Senior Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration to be considered afresh by DPC with reference to date of promotion of junior - Consequential benefits to follow (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-communication of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) to the appellant before considering him for financial upgradation and promotion violates principles of natural justice and transparency, and whether CSIR, as an autonomous body, is bound by the law laid down in Dev Dutt v. Union of India.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant is granted an opportunity to submit a representation in respect of the ACRs for the concerned years within four weeks. The respondents shall consider the representation and communicate the outcome within two months. Based on that decision, the case for financial upgradation shall be considered afresh. If ACRs are upgraded, the case for promotion to Senior Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration shall be considered afresh by the DPC with reference to the date on which his junior was promoted, with consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Communication of every entry in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) is mandatory
- Non-communication of ACRs is arbitrary and violates natural justice
- Autonomous bodies must follow Supreme Court judgments
- MACP financial upgradation requires meeting benchmark
- Representation against ACRs must be considered before adverse decisions
