AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: -
“xx xx xx xx
(ii)Issue a Writ, Order or Direction especially in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Impugned Speaking Order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure P- 8) vide which the claim of Petitioner qua grant of benefit of higher pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) of the Government dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-3) has been illegally kept pending, whereas his batchmates, who were appointed along with him on the post of Sub-inspector in Intelligence Cadre of Punjab Police have already been released the aforesaid benefit w.e.f. 29.12.2020 i.e., upon completing four (4) years. Petitioner's claim has been kept pending on the premise that initially he could not be granted the benefit of ACP w.e.f. 29.12.2020 due to non-availability of ACR and as per the recorded/available ACRs of the Petitioner he would be eligible for grant of ACP on 31.10.2022, however on account of no further instructions received from the Respondent-Government regarding grant of ACP post 01.07.2021 (i.e., after coming into effect of 6th Pay Commission), the Respondents have wrongfully concluded that the Petitioner cannot be granted benefit of ACP.
(iii)With a further prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release the benefit of Higher Pay Scale entitled to the Petitioner under the ACP Scheme upon completion of four (4) years of service as Sub-inspector in the Intelligence Cadre of Punjab Police w.e.f. 29.12.2020, especially in view of the fact that the said benefit under the ACP Scheme has already been released to Petitioner's batchmates who were appointed and confirmed in service at the same time along with the Petitioner and the same cannot be merely denied on account of non-recording of ACR/s of Petitioner by his superiors.
(iv)With a further prayer to direct the Respondents to release the arrears of Pay which the Petitioners would be entitled to, upon such grant of such Higher Pay Scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, upon completion of four (4) years of service, along with 18% interest per annum.”
Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Intelligence Cadre of Punjab Police, vide letter dated 13.12.2016, and he joined as such on 30.12.2016 on probation for a period of three years, which he successfully completed on 29.12.2019, vide order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-1). While the petitioner was undergoing his probation period, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner along with three other employees on 30.05.2018 and chargesheet issued to him was filed on 25.04.2019 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner completed four years service on 29.12.2020. Since the batchmates of the petitioner were already granted the benefit of first ACP on completion of four years of service and the same was not granted to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), seeking grant of four year proficiency step up and requisite financial benefits under ACP Scheme. As no decision was taken by the respondents on his representation, the petitioner, filed CWP-9024 of 2024 – Abhishek Sharma v. State of Punjab and another, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-7), by directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 28.11.2023, within a period of three months from the date of said order. In pursuance thereto, the claim of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and the same was rejected by issuing a speaking order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure P-8). The said order has been impugned in the present petition.
Reply by way of affidavit of Charanjit Singh, IPS, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Intelligence, Punjab, on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed, wherein the aforementioned factual position has not been disputed, however, the respondents have tried to justify the reasoning given in the speaking order, by stating the reasons for not writing the ACR of the petitioner from the date of his joining i.e. 30.12.2016 till 31.03.2020. Thereafter, an additional affidavit of Deep Kamal, PPS, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Intelligence, Punjab, on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has also been filed, wherein it has been stated as under: -
“3.That it is respectfully submitted that claim of the petitioner for granting him ACP increment after completing four year's service has been kept pending on the premise that initially he could not be granted the benefit of ACP w.e.f. 29.12.2020 due to of non- availability of ACR and as per the recorded/available ACRs of the Petitioner, he became eligible for grant of ACP on 31.10.2022, however, the State Government (Finance Department) Punjab vide letter No. FD-FP-10ACP (DACP) 5/2021-5FP-1 dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure R-1) stopped benefit of ACP increment after 01.07.2021 (i.e. after coming into effect of 6th Pay Commission).
4.That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was recruited as Intelligence Officer (Sub Inspector) on 29.12.2016 in the Intelligence Wing. He was posted in the O.C.C.U (now A.G.T.F) vide order No. 33644-61/EDSB-5 dated 15.11.2017. The office of Director General of Police, A.G.T.F, Punjab vide his letter No. 10400/Steno/AGTF, dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure R-2) had intimated that ACRs of the petitioner could not be initiated due to the following reasons:-
1.) A.C.R Reports for the period from 01.03.2018 to 31.03.2019:-A Departmental enquiry was initiated against above official along with three other employees vide this office order No. 12168-81/Esstt-2 dated 30.05.2018, which was filed vide order No. 8807-18/Esstt-2 dated 25.04.2019. Due to pending Departmental Enquiry, A.C.R for this period was not written and the competent officer/ A.I.G Police/O.C.C.U has retired w.e.f. 15.04.2021, therefore No Report Certificate was sent for this period.
2.) Period of posting from 01.04.2019 to 31.05.2019 is less than 90 days.
3.) From 01.06.2019 to 31.03.2020 he was deputed for A.B.C.D Course during the Basic Training. Therefore, No Report Certificate was sent for this period.
The List of A.C.Rs of the petitioner is as under:-
Sr. No. Period of ACR Remarks 1. 30.12.2016 to 14.03.2017 Period is less than 90 days 2. 15.03.2017 to 31.03.2017 Basic Training Course at PPA Phillaur 3. 01.04.2017 to 28.02.2018 Basic Training Course at PPA Phillaur 4. 01.03.2018 to 31.03.2019 No Report Certificate 5. 01.04.2019 to 31.05.2019 Period is less than 90 days 6. 01.06.2019 to 31.03.2020 No Report Certificate. 7. 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 A (Very Good). 8. 01.04.2021 to 31.12.2021 +A (Outstanding). A List of A.C.Rs is attached herewith as Annexure R-3.
5.That it is further respectfully submitted that as per para No. 3 of Punjab Government instructions dated 06.10.2021 in case No Report Certificate is given despite filling up A.C.R by the concerned employee and ACRs of previous years are not available due to direct recruitment or due to some other reasons, in that case only available ACRs be considered for promotion. As per instructions dated 06.09.2001 of the department required Bench marks for promotion (marks of Five reports ratio of 12 marks be counted as (12xavailable APARs/5) should be calculated. This procedure would be applicable not only in promotion cases of D.P.C rather in other promotion cases also. The petitioner was entitled for A.C.P increment after completion 4 years service on 30.12.2020. But up to 31.03.2020 no grading of A.C.R was available. Furthermore, A.C.P scheme increment has been stopped by the Finance Department w.e.f. 01.07.2021 as per Punjab Govt. instructions dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure R-1).
6.That due to deputing the petitioner to P.P.A Phillaur for Basic Training and A.B.C.D course, no A.C.Rs for the period from 30.12.2016 to 31.03.2020 could be initiated. His ACR for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 is 'A' (Very Good) and ACR for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.12.2021 is +A (Outstanding). But due to non availability of ACRs for the period from 30.12.2016 to 31.03.2020, he could not be granted ACP higher pay scale after completion of 4 years service whereas his batch-mates have been granted benefit of A.C.P higher pay scale.”
In nutshell, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner’s claim for grant of the first ACP increment upon completion of four years of service was kept pending due to the non-availability of his ACRs for the period from 30.12.2016 to 31.03.2020. The respondents have explained that the ACRs could not be initiated for various reasons, including the pendency of departmental proceedings, the petitioner’s posting for basic training at PPA Phillaur, and the deputation for the A.B.C.D. course. The available ACRs of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 to 31.12.2021 were graded ‘A’ (Very Good) and ‘+A’ (Outstanding), respectively. It is further stated that on the basis of the available ACRs, the petitioner became eligible for the grant of ACP on 31.10.2022; however, the benefit of ACP increment had already been discontinued with effect from 01.07.2021 pursuant to the Punjab Government instructions dated 15.12.2021. Accordingly, the respondents have denied the petitioner’s claim for the grant of the said benefit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed four years of service on 29.12.2020 and was, therefore, entitled for the grant of first ACP on completion of four years of service. He further submits that the petitioner’s batchmates were granted the said benefit upon completion of their four years service, whereas the petitioner was denied the same. He further submits that non-writing of ACRs of the petitioner from his date of joining i.e. 30.12.2016 till 31.03.2020 was not attributable to him and, therefore, he cannot be made to suffer for non-writing of the ACRs for the said period. In support of the said contention, he has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in CWP-9545 of 2010 – Sarabjot Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, dated 01.09.2011 ; 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 11357 and CWP-5217 of 2026 – Pargat Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, dated 04.05.2026 (2026 NCPHHC 68364).
Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the additional affidavit, submits that ACRs of the petitioner from 30.12.2016 to 31.03.2020 could not be written for multiple reasons, which have been explained in their additional affidavit, therefore, in the absence of the ACRs, the petitioner could not be granted the benefit of first ACP on completion of four years of service.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner initially joined the service in the Intelligence Cadre of the Punjab Police as Sub-Inspector on 30.12.2016; successfully completed his period of probation on 29.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) and completed four years of service on 29.12.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that his batchmates were granted the benefit of first ACP upon completion of four years of service and relevant averment to this effect has been made in para 16 of the petition, which has not been denied by the respondents in their written statement.
There is no denial of the fact that the ACRs of the petitioner could not be written from 30.12.2016 to 31.03.2020 for various reasons. However, the said reasons were not attributable to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of non-writing of his ACRs for the aforesaid period.
A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Sarabjot Kaur (supra) and in the said judgment, it has been held as under: -
“xx xx xx xx xx A perusal of ACRs shows that after completion of 4 years regular service on 26.6.1996 he was to be given placement w.e.f. 1.1.1997. He did not qualify for the placement as per ACRs for grant of ACP scale after four years of regular service on account of the fact that ACRs not recorded by the concerned officer.
xx xx xx xx xx
First of all mere non-availability of annual confidential report cannot possibly be taken to be conclusive proof of its non-recording. Again, even if annual confidential report is not recorded if a person worked in the service for which it was not recorded, it cannot be said that he had not experienced in line or service for that period. Evaluation under the head experience in line therefore should have been made on the basis of length of service put in and not the length of period for which annual confidential reports were available. In these respects, the criteria laid out by the Commission thus was not fairly implemented resulting in discrimination. This for obvious reasons had vitiated the selection which deserves to be quashed on that score as well."
After going through the facts of the present case one thing is clear that in the entire service career of Dr. Kanwaljit Singh there is no adverse remarks in his ACR. He has served for the State of Punjab for 17 years. As per Annexures P-6/A to P-6/D the SSP Jagraon has given special report that the ACRs are not available and the work and conduct of the official was satisfactory and nothing adverse was against him. In spite of these observations, the benefit of ACP has been denied on the technical ground that he does not have 50% good ACRs as contemplated vide Government instructions dated 17.4.2000 and instructions dated 18.6.2001. As per the special report these ACRs can be treated as satisfactory. Non recording of the ACRs cannot be the reason of disadvantage to Dr. Kanwaljit Singh. Order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and direction is given to the respondents to treat the non-recorded ACRs as good and grant him the benefit of ACP as per Government instructions dated 17.4.2000 and 18.6.2001 and pass an appropriate order re-fixing his salary and thereafter re-fixing family pension within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner is held entitle to a cost of Rs. 20,000/-.”
In the case of Pargat Singh (supra), this Court while considering the same issue has held as under: -
“6.The absence of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) in an employee’s service record cannot be cited as a valid ground to deny service benefits, particularly when such absence is attributable to the employer’s own administrative practice. As authoritatively laid down in Kamal Kumar (supra), ACRs are not “earned” by an employee but are required to be recorded by the competent authorities. Any failure on the part of the reporting officers cannot operate to the prejudice of the employee.
xx xx xx xx xx
9.In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of ACP on completion of 4, 9, and 14 years of service from the due dates, along with consequential arrears and interest @ 6% per annum. The needful shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
Applying the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments to the present case, it is clear that the petitioner completed his four years of service on 29.12.2020 and his batchmates were granted the benefit of first ACP upon completion of four years of service. The respondents have wrongly denied the said benefit to the petitioner only on account of non-recording of his ACRs for the aforesaid period i.e. 30.12.2016 to 31.03.2020. However, the reasons for non-recording of the ACRs were not attributable to the petitioner. An employee cannot be penalised for an administrative lapse or for circumstances beyond his control. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be made to suffer or placed at a disadvantage, merely because his ACRs were not recorded for the aforesaid period.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure P-8), rejecting his claim on this ground cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of ACP upon completion of four years of service, with effect from the date on which the same was granted to his similarly situated batchmates, along with all consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.