NOTE: THIS LAND MARK JUDGEMENT PROVIDES GREAT RELEIF TO ALL THOSE EMPLOYEES,
WHO HAVE MISSED THE CHANCE FOR GETTING PROMOTION AND OTHER BENEFITS DUE TO NOT
HAVING TIMELY INFORMATION ABOUT STATUS OF THEIR ACR BY CONCERNED AUTHORITY, AS
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SAID IN PARAGRAPH 39 OF THIS FOLLOWING
JUDGEMENT:
“------ 39. 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.------“
Supreme Court of India - CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO 7631/2002 Dev Dutt vs Union Of
India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12-5-2008
Supreme Court of India
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12/5/2008 JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against
the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 26.11.2001 in Writ
Appeal No. 447 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal of the appellant filed against
the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2001. 2. Heard learned
Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The appellant was in the
service of the Border Roads Engineering Service which is governed by the
Border Roads Engineering Service Group 'A' Rules, as amended. As per these
rules, since the appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.2.1988,
he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending
Engineer on completion of 5 years on the grade of Executive Engineer, which
he completed on 21.2.1993. Accordingly the name of the appellant was
included in the list of candidates eligible for promotion. 4. The
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held its meeting on 16.12.1994. In
that meeting the appellant was not held to be eligible for promotion, but his
juniors were selected and promoted to the rank of Superintending Engineer.
Hence the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Gauhati High Court which
was dismissed and his appeal before the Division Bench also failed.
Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by special leave before this Court.
5. The stand of the respondent was that according to para 6.3(ii) of the
guidelines for promotion of departmental candidates which was issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Public Grievances and Pension, vide Office
Memorandum dated 10.4.1989, for promotion to all posts which are in the pay
scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- and above, the bench mark grade should be 'very
good' for the last five years before the D.P.C. In other words, only those
candidates who had 'very good' entries in their Annual Confidential Reports
(ACRs) for the last five years would be considered for promotion. The post of
Superintending Engineer carries the pay scale of Rs. 3700- 5000/- and since
the appellant did not have 'very good' entry but only 'good' entry for the
year 1993-94, he was not considered for promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer. 6. The grievance of the appellant was that he was
not communicated the 'good' entry for the year 1993-94. He submitted that had
he been communicated that entry he would have had an opportunity of making a
representation for upgrading that entry from 'good' to 'very good', and if
that representation was allowed he would have also become eligible for
promotion. Hence he submits that the rules of natural justice have been
violated. 7. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that a
'good' entry is not an adverse entry and it is only an adverse entry which
has to be communicated to an employee. Hence he submitted that there was no
illegality in not communicating the 'good' entry to the appellant. 8.
Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court in
Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1988 (Supp) SCC 674 in which it
was held that an un-communicated adverse report should not form the
foundation to deny the benefits to a government servant when similar benefits
are extended to his juniors. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in
State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah 1999 (1) SCC 529 in
which it was held: Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the
government servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. That is
why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries so that the
government servant to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either
opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was
wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter and on being
convinced that his previous conduct justified such an entry, to improve his
performance. On the strength of the above decisions learned Counsel for the
respondent submitted that only an adverse entry needs to be communicated to
an employee. 9. We do not agree. In our opinion every entry must be
communicated to the employee concerned, so that he may have an opportunity of
making a representation against it if he is aggrieved. 10. In the present
case the bench mark (i.e. the essential requirement) laid down by the
authorities for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was that the
candidate should have 'very good' entry for the last five years. Thus in this
situation the 'good' entry in fact is an adverse entry because it eliminates
the candidate from being considered for promotion. Thus, nomenclature is not
relevant, it is the effect which the entry is having which determines whether
it is an adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours of the entry which is
important, not the phraseology. The grant of a `good' entry is of no
satisfaction to the incumbent if it in fact makes him ineligible for
promotion or has an adverse effect on his chances. 11. Hence, in our
opinion, the 'good' entry should have been communicated to the appellant so
as to enable him to make a representation praying that the said entry for the
year 1993-94 should be upgraded from 'good' to 'very good'. Of course, after
considering such a representation it was open to the authority concerned to
reject the representation and confirm the 'good' entry (though of course in a
fair manner), but at least an opportunity of making such a representation
should have been given to the appellant, and that would only have been
possible had the appellant been communicated the 'good' entry, which was not
done in this case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the non-communication of
the 'good' entry was arbitrary and hence illegal, and the decisions relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable. 12.
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that under the Office Memorandum
21011/4/87 [Estt.'A'] issued by the Ministry of Personnel/Public Grievance
and Pensions dated 10/11.09.1987, only an adverse entry is to be communicated
to the concerned employee. It is well settled that no rule or government
instruction can violate Article 14 or any other provision of the
Constitution, as the Constitution is the highest law of the land. The
aforesaid Office Memorandum, if it is interpreted to mean that only adverse
entries are to be communicated to the concerned employee and not other
entries, would in our opinion become arbitrary and hence illegal being
violative of Article 14. All similar Rules/Government Orders/Office
Memoranda, in respect of all services under the State, whether civil,
judicial, police, or other service (except the military), will hence also be
illegal and are therefore liable to be ignored. 13. It has been held in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. that arbitrariness violates Article
14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the 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-gradation. In our opinion, 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-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 benefits). Moreover, the object of writing the confidential
report and making entries in them is to give an opportunity to a public
servant to improve his performance, vide State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar
Misra . Hence such non-communication is, in our opinion, arbitrary and hence
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. In our opinion, every
entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under
the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial,
police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him,
within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a
bench mark or not. Even if there is no bench mark, non-communication of an
entry may adversely affect the employee's chances of promotion (or getting
some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for
promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a `good' or `average' or
`fair' entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person
having a `very good' or `outstanding' entry. 15. In most services there is a
gradation of entries, which is usually as follows: (i) Outstanding
(ii) Very Good (iii) Good (iv) Average (v) Fair (vi) Poor
A person getting any of the entries at items (ii) to (vi) should be
communicated the entry so that he has an opportunity of making a
representation praying for its upgradation, and such a representation must be
decided fairly and within a reasonable period by the concerned authority.
16. If we hold that only `poor' entry is to be communicated, the consequences
may be that persons getting `fair', `average', `good' or `very good' entries
will not be able to represent for its upgradation, and this may subsequently
adversely affect their chances of promotion (or get some other benefit).
17. In our opinion if the Office Memorandum dated 10/11.09.1987, is
interpreted to mean that only adverse entries (i.e. `poor' entry) need to be
communicated and not `fair', 'average' or 'good' entries, it would become
arbitrary (and hence illegal) since it may adversely affect the incumbent's
chances of promotion, or get some other benefit. 18. For example, if the
bench mark is that an incumbent must have `very good' entries in the last
five years, then if he has `very good' (or even `outstanding') entries for
four years, a `good' entry for only one year may yet make him ineligible for
promotion. This `good' entry may be due to the personal pique of his
superior, or because the superior asked him to do something wrong which the
incumbent refused, or because the incumbent refused to do sycophancy of his
superior, or because of caste or communal prejudice, or for some other
extraneous consideration. 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-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
v. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the
Constitution. 20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark 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. 21. Learned Counsel for the
respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v.
Prabhat Chandra Jain . We have perused the said decision, which is cryptic
and does not go into details. Moreover it has not noticed the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (supra) which
has held that all State action must be non-arbitrary, otherwise Article 14
of the Constitution will be violated. In our opinion the decision in U.P. Jal
Nigam (supra) cannot be said to have laid down any legal principle that
entries need not be communicated. As observed in Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani AIR 2004 SC 4778 (vide para 9): Observations of
Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's Theorems nor as provisions of the
statute, and that too, taken out of their context. 22. In U.P. Jal
Nigam's case (supra) there is only a stray observation "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 are a positive grading". There is
no discussion about the question whether such 'good' grading can also have
serious adverse consequences as it may virtually eliminate the chances of
promotion of the incumbent if there is a benchmark requiring 'very good'
entry. And even when there is no benchmark, such downgrading can have serious
adverse effect on an incumbent's chances of promotion where comparative merit
of several candidates is considered. 23. Learned Counsel for the
respondent also relied upon the decision of this Court in Union of India and
Anr. v. S.K. Goel and Ors. and on the strength of the same submitted that
only an adverse entry need be communicated to the incumbent. The aforesaid
decision is a 2- Judge Bench decision and hence cannot prevail over the
7-Judge Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India (supra) in which it has been held that arbitrariness violates
Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the aforesaid decision in Union of
India v. S.K. Goel (supra) has not considered the aforesaid Constitution
Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra), it cannot be said to have
laid down the correct law. Moreover, this decision also cannot be treated as
a Euclid's formula since there is no detailed discussion in it about the
adverse consequences of non-communication of the entry, and the consequential
denial of making a representation against it. 24. 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 morale of many good officers
who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, while officers of inferior
merit may be promoted. 25. In the present case, the action of the
respondents in not communicating the 'good' entry for the year 1993-94 to the
appellant is in our opinion arbitrary and violative of natural justice,
because in substance the `good' entry operates as an adverse entry (for the
reason given above). 26. What is natural justice? The rules of natural
justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather
they are flexible. They may, however, be summarized in one word : fairness.
In other words, what they require is fairness by the authority concerned.
Of course, what is fair would depend on the situation and the context. 27.
Lord Esher M.R. in Voinet v. Barrett (1885) 55 L.J. QB 39, 39 observed:
"Natural justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong." 28. In
our opinion, our natural sense of what is right and wrong tells us that it
was wrong on the part of the respondent in not communicating the 'good' entry
to the appellant since he was thereby deprived of the right to make a
representation against it, which if allowed would have entitled him to be
considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. One may not
have the right to promotion, but one has the right to be considered for
promotion, and this right of the appellant was violated in the present case.
29. A large number of decisions of this Court have discussed the principles
of natural justice and it is not necessary for us to go into all of them
here. However, we may consider a few. 30. Thus, in A.K. Kraipak and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors. , a Constitution Bench of this Court held: The
concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent
years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules, namely
(1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (Nemo debet csse judex propria
causa), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without
affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon
thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial
enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to
be added to the rules of natural justice. (emphasis supplied) 31.
The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in K.I. Shephard and Ors.
v. Union of India and Ors. . It was held in this decision that even
administrative acts have to be in accordance with natural justice if they
have civil consequences. It was also held that natural justice has various
facets and acting fairly is one of them. 32. In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam
Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant AIR 2001 SC 24, this Court held (vide para 2):
The doctrine (natural justice) is now termed as a synonym of fairness in
the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a
governmental action. (emphasis supplied) 33. In the same decision it
was also held following the decision of Tucker, LJ in Russell v. Duke of
Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER 109: The requirement of natural justice must
depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the
rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject- matter that is being
dealt with, and so forth. 34. In Union of India etc. v. Tulsiram Patel
etc. a Constitution Bench of this Court referred to with approval the
following observations of Ormond, L.J. in Norwest Holst Ltd. v. Secretary of
State for Trade (1978) 1, Ch. 201: The House of Lords and this Court have
repeatedly emphasized that the ordinary principles of natural justice must
be kept flexible and must be adapted to the circumstances prevailing in any
particular case. (emphasis supplied) 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? 35. In Swadesh Cotton Mills etc. v.
Union of India etc. , this Court following the decision in Mohinder Singh
Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Ors. held that the soul
of the rule (natural justice) is fair play in action. 36. 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. 37. 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 . 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. 38. 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. 39. 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.
40. 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. 41. 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 . But they will apply to employees of
statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities
of the State (in addition to Government servants). 42. In Canara Bank v.
V.K. Awasthy , 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: 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. 43. 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 LJKB 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". 44. In State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for
Governance Trust and Ors. , it was observed (vide para 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. 45. 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. 46. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that both
the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Division Bench erred in law.
Hence, we set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge as well as the
impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench. 47. We are informed that
the appellant has already retired from service. However, if his
representation for upgradation of the `good' entry is allowed, he may benefit
in his pension and get some arrears. Hence we direct that the 'good' entry of
1993-94 be communicated to the appellant forthwith and he should be permitted
to make a representation against the same praying for its upgradation. If the
upgradation is allowed, the appellant should be considered forthwith for
promotion as Superintending Engineer retrospectively and if he is promoted he
will get the benefit of higher pension and the balance of arrears of pay
along with 8% per annum interest. 48. We, therefore, direct that the 'good'
entry be communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On being communicated, the
appellant may make the representation, if he so chooses, against the said
entry within two months thereafter and the said representation will be
decided within two months thereafter. If his entry is upgraded the appellant
shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant
gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher
pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of
payment. 49. With these observations this appeal is allowed. No costs. ____
To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with
the subject unsubscribe.
To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
