CWP No.13807 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13807 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.02.2010 **** Gurcharan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as a Statistical Assistant in the office of Deputy Director, Employment Generation and Training at Patiala. He is aggrieved at the action of the Accepting Authority who, notwithstanding the grading given to the petitioner by the Reporting Officer, has downgraded his ACRs for the years 2004-2005, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 also from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Average’ and/or from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Good’. (2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. CWP No.13807 of 2008.doc - 2 – In order to find out the material, if any, on record which might have prompted the authorities to reduce the petitioner’s grading in the ACRs, original Confidential Rolls have also been summoned and perused. (3). Suffice it to observe that the subject ACRs, are a glaring example of totally mechanical and casual approach adopted by the authorities while recording the ‘Annual Confidential Reports’ of their subordinates. The State Government has issued instructions/guidelines from time to time and there are catena of judgements highlighting the importance of Annual Confidential Reports in the service career of an Official. The Reporting Officer as well as the Accepting Officer are under an onerous duty to apply their mind and disclose the information, material or impressions they have gathered about the performance of the official so as to substantiate the adverse remarks, if any, recorded by them. (4). In the case in hand, the Reporting Officer has mechanically graded the petitioner as ‘Very Good’ or ‘Good’; the Accepting Authority too has gone in the same fashion while downgrading the same as ‘Average’ or ‘Good’. It requires no special mention CWP No.13807 of 2008.doc - 3 – that a Reporting Officer has more opportunities to directly interact, supervise and watch the performance of his subordinate(s) as compared to the Accepting Officer. It, however, does not preclude the Accepting Authority from disagreeing with the overall assessment made by the Reporting Officer and to form his own independent opinion but such an opinion, if adverse to the service career of the employee, ought to be founded upon some semblance of material or reasons to justify, lest it is termed as whimsical or fanciful and fails to satisfy the bare test of reasonableness. Unfortunately, no such exercise has been undertaken by the Accepting Authority in the case in hand. (5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that the ‘downgrading’ of the ACRs for the years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 only by the Accepting Authority is set aside, with a direction that these ACRs be put up before the then Accepting Officer, if he is still in service, who shall then objectively re-consider both the ACRs and give his accepting opinion. However, the said Accepting Authority shall not be precluded to form and reiterate the same opinion provided that the CWP No.13807 of 2008.doc - 4 – conclusions drawn are founded upon some material/reasons. The Accepting Authority shall give his final opinion as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and depending upon the overall grading to be earned by the petitioner in both the ACRs that his claim for promotion shall be re-considered by the DPC, if so required. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.02.2010 vishal shonkar