SAROJ KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 171, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015]9S.C.R.171 
SAROJKUMAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6081 of2015) 
AUGUST 18, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Promotion - Denial of- On the basis of 
uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs -After direction of c 
court in the first round of litigation, ACRs communicated to 
the employee - Subsequent thereto representation of the 
employee rejected - After the direction of the court in the 
second round of litigation, representation of the employee 
again rejected after reconsideration t/:Jereof - In the third D 
round !present litigation, Tribunal directed the authorities 
concerned to reconsider the case of the employee from the 
date his juniors were promoted - High Court set aside the 
order of Tribunal- On appeal, held: In the present case, not 
only the ACRs have been communicated to the employee, 
E 
his representation too had been rejected - Therefore, after 
communication of the ACRs and rejection of the 
representation, Tribunal was not correct in directing to 
reconsider the promotion of the employee from the date his 
juniors were promoted, having treated the remarks as F 
uncommunicated. 
Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725: 
2008 (8) SCR 174; Abhijit Ghosh Dastidarv. Union of 
India and Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 146; Sukhdev Singh v. 
G 
Union oflndia (2013) 9 SCC 566: 2013 (5) SCR 1004 
- held inapplicable. 
Casa Law Reference 
2008 (8) SCR 174 
held inapplicable. 
171 
Para 8 H
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A (2009) 16 sec 146 
2013 (5) SCR 1004 
held inapplicable 
held inapplicable 
Para 8 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
B 6081 of2015 
· 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2014 of the · 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No. 50733 
of2012 
K. Radhakrishnan,Ajay Singh and Vivek Narayan Sharma 
for the Appellant. 
Tushar Mehta,ASG, Sunil Mathews, Mukesh Verma and 
B.V. Bairam Das forthe Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
against judgment and order dated 27.2.2014, passed by the 
E 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 50733 of 
2012 whereby the High Court has allowed the petition and set 
aside the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Berich (for short "the 
Tribunal") in Original Application (OA) No. 658 of 2011. By 
F said order the Tribunal (CAT) had directed that the claim by 
the appellant Saroj Kumar for promotion be considered 
ignoring earlier uncommunicated entries of Annual Confidential 
Reports (ACRs). The controversy in the present case relates 
to the downgrading AC Rs of the appellant without giving him 
G any opportunity, which were later comm4nicated and 
. representation made by the appellant was also considered 
and rejected. 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
H perused the papers on record. 
·
SAROJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS 
173 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
3. Succinctly stated, the facts are that the appellant Saroj A 
Kumar was selected through Civil Service Examination, 1985, 
and was allotted Indian Defence Accounts Service (for short 
"IDAS"). 
On 29.1.1996 he was promoted as Junior 
Administrative Officer with effect from 12.1.1996. He was 
promoted in the pay scale of Rs.14200-18200 vide order dated 
B 
10.11.2000 and was given Selection Grade with effect from 
5.5.2000. Later, on 14.6.2004 he was posted as Joint 
Controller of Defence Accounts, Jabalpur (M.P.). A DPC was 
convened for promotion in the Senior Administrative Grade 
on 10.5.2006. It is pleaded by the appellant that to his utter C 
shock, ignoring him, juniors to him were promoted. 
4. Having aggrieved with the denial of promotion, the 
appellant, in the first round of litigation, filed OA No. 640 of 
2006 before CAT, Allahabad Bench, challenging the D 
proceedings of the DPC, and granting promotion to the junior 
officers. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.9.2008, disposed 
of the OA remitting the. matter back to the respondent authorities 
for communication of annual confidential reports and to 
consider the case of the appellant afresh, keeping in mind the E 
law laid down by the Apex Court in Dev Duttv. Union of India 
and others1. In response to said order, the appellant was 
communicated the annual confidentia.1 reports and he submitted 
representation on 29.7.2009 to the respondent
authorities F 
pleading that in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India 
and others2 it has been held that if a grading falling below the 
benchmark, has not been communicated to the concerned 
employee, it has to be ignored while considering the promotion 
of such employee. However, vide order dated 22.1.2010, the G 
respondent authorities rejected the representation against 
downgrading of remarks by Reviewing Authority and upheld 
theACRs for the period 1999-2000, 21.6.2000 to 31.3.2001 
1 c2ooa) a sec 725 
2 c2oos) 15 sec 146 
H
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A and 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002, which, according to the appellant, 
should have been treated uncommunicated. 
5. As such, in the second round the appellant filed OA No. 
490 of 2010 before the Tribunal challenging the rejection of 
B the representation by the respondent authorities. The Tribunal 
was pleased to allow the OA vide order dated 27.4.2010 and · 
set aside the order dated 22.1.2010 and once again remitted 
. the matter back to the respondent authorities for 
reconsideration of the representation of the appellant. 
C Aggrieved by the same, the respondent authorities filed Civil 
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8357 of2011 before Allahabad 
High Court, which was dismissed on 21.2.2011. ·while 
dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that 
alleged downgrading of the AC Rs of the appellant by the then 
D Reviewing Authority (against the grading recorded by the 
Assessing Officer and the Reporting Officer) was without any 
material available on record. The High Court further observed 
that the decision of the competent authority is simply reiteration 
of d0wngrading of the three entries by the Reviewing Officer, 
'E by observing that the Reviewing Officer has downgraded the 
entries consciously based on work parameters. It further 
observed that ifthe complaints were there, the same should 
have been mentioned while downgrading the entries. The 
F respondents, vide order dated 23.3.2011, after considering 
the
matter afresh, again found no substance in the 
representation and rejected the same. 
6. In the third round, appellant filed OA No. 658 of 2011 
before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 23.3.2011, 
G passed by the authorities. Said QA was als9 allowed by the 
Tribunal on 16.1.2012, and the order dated 23.3.2011 was 
set aside with further direction to the respondent to reconstitute 
the Review DPC and reconsider the case of the appellant. 
H Aggrieved by said order of the Tribunal, the respondents filed
SAROJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS 
175 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
Writ-A No. 50733 of 2012, which is allowed vide impugned A 
order challenged before us. 
7. On behalf of respondent No. 4, Deputy Controller of 
Defence Accounts has filed its counter affidavit. Relevant 
paragraphs of the same are reproduced below: -
B 
"7. The Hon'ble High Court, by the impugned judgment 
and order held that the issue in the present case is not 
with regard to considering the claim of the petitioner 
ignoring the uncommunicated entries, and there is no 
c 
such prayer in the 0 .A. filed by the petitioner nor has the 
Hon'ble Tnbunal directed the reconsideration of the claim 
of the petitioner for promotion ignoring the 
uncommunicated entries through review DPC; 
subsequent to the first order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the 
D 
uncommunicated entries were made available·to the 
petitioner and he made a representation against the 
entries; this representation was rejected, leading to the 
filing of another OA490/2010 by the petitioner, wherein 
the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the order on representation 
E 
was not a reasoned order and directed reconsideration 
of the representation in the light of law laid down by this 
Hon'ble Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 
8 SCC 725; W.P. 8357/2011 filed thereafter was 
dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 
F 
21.2.2011 holding that the complaints which led to the 
downgrading of the ACRs of the petitioner and the
reasons for relying on the complaints have not been 
recorded in the order rejecting the representation; ifthe 
G. 
petitioner wanted his claim for promotion considered 
ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs, he should have 
.) 
challenged the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 
27.4.2010 in O.A. 490/2010 and that of the Hon'ble High 
Court dated 21.2.2011inW.P.8357/2011; the Hon'ble 
H
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Tribunal, by order dated 16.1.2012 in O.A. 658/2011 has 
not recorded any reasons for disagreeing with the 
conclusions drawn by the competent authority in its 
detailed order supported by reasons. The Hon'ble High 
Court thus remanded the matter back to the Hon'ble 
B 
Tribunal to examine the merits of the order rejecting the 
representation of the petitioner." 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
c 
"9. ·It is strongly denied that the adverse entries remained 
uncommunica~ed because of active concealment by the 
respondents resulting in violation of fundamental rights 
of the petitioner and the principles of natural justice. It is 
submitted that as per DOPT OM dated 11 .5 .1990, 
D 
communication was mandatory only in cases were 
adverse entry was made in the ACR. Since the gradings 
in the relevant AC Rs of the petitioner were not adverse· 
but below bench mark, they were not communicated to 
him. However, during the pendencyofthefirstofthe OAs 
E 
filed by the petitioner, O.A. 64012006, this Hon'ble Court 
rendered judgment in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. 
(2008) 8 SCC 725. In view of the law laid down in Dev 
Dutt's case, the Hon'ble Triobunal, by order dated 
18.9.2008 in O.A. 64012006, directed the authorities to 
F 
reconsider the case of the petitioner. In compliance of 
the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. 64012006, the 
confidential reports for the relevant period 1999-2000, · 
21.6.2000 - 31.3.2001 and 2001-2002 were made 
G
available to the petitioner, and his representation was 
considered by the competent authority." 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
l 
"11. It is respectfully submitted that the directions 
H 
contained in paras 43 and 44 of thia Hon'ble Court in
.. 
-
SAROJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
Dev Dutt's case that the below bench mark entry be 
communicated to the employee and his representation 
be decided, and the directions in para 37 "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 ...... " have been followed 
in letter and spirit. The AC Rs of the petitioner were written 
by the PCDA/CDAas reporting officer, reviewed by the 
PCDA (Pensions)/Addl. CGDA accepted by CGDA. The 
representations of the petitioner have been considered 
by higher authority, namely, two different Secretaries 
(Defence Finance) and speaking orders issued. Since 
there is no upgradation of below bench mark gradings, 
there is no necessity for holding review DPC.;, 
)()()( 
)()()( 
)()()( 
"13. The Hon'ble High Court has correctly found that the 
below bench mark entries were communicated to the 
petitioner as per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal 
and Hon'ble High Court, and the issue that remains is 
not with respect to non-communication of entries but with 
regard to whether the representation of the petitioner has 
been considered objectively and order passed stating 
the complaints received and giving reasons for relying 
on the said complaints for downgrading the entries." 
177 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
8. From the above paragraphs of the counter affidavit it
is 
clear that after first round of litigation i.e. OA No. 640 of 2006, 
concluded vide order dated 18.9.2008, passed by the Tribunal, 
G 
communication of the entries, due to which the appellant's 
promotion was affected, was made and representation was 
submitted by the appellant on 12.6.2009. It is also clear from 
the record that the representation of the appellant was rejected 
vide order dated 22.1.2010. Consequent to subsequent H
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
direction of the Tribunal in second round oflitigation, as affirmed 
by the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8357 
of 2011, the matter has been reconsidered and rejected. In 
the above circumstances, after communication of the entries 
made to the appellant and subsequent rejection of the 
B representation, now, the law laid down in the cases of Dev 
Dutt v. Union of India (supra), Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar. v. 
Union of India and others (supra), and Sukhdev Singh v. 
Union of lndia3, is of little help to the present appellant for the 
reason that in the present case not only the AC Rs have been 
C 
communicated to the appellant, his representation too has 
been rejected. 
9. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly taken note of 
the fact that on conclusion of second round of litigation neither 
D there was direction by the Tribunal nor by the High Court to 
ignore the entries in question (after rejection of the 
representation against it) for promotion of the appellant from 
the date when his juniors were promoted. In the present round, 
the Tribunal has erred in directing the authorities to consider 
E the case of the appellant for promotion from the date when his 
juniors were promoted, ignoring the remarks, which had been 
communicated after first round of litigation. We are in 
agreement with the High Court that after theACRs have been 
communicated and representation has been rejected, the 
F Tribunal
should not have treated the remarks uncommunicated. 
10. 
Therefore, we do not find any error in the 
impugned order passed by the High Court. 
G 
11. 
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There 
shall be no order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal dismissed. 
H 
3 (2013) 9 sec 566 
-
-