All Punjab Gramin Bank Employees Union vs Punjab Gramin Bank and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the union of the employees working with the Punjab Gramin Bank praying for a direction to the respondents to convey the evaluated Performance Appraisal Reports to the members of the petitioner-Union for the last five years and not the final rating only. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the appraisal report of an employee is prepared, mere there are observations and comments made regarding his working besides other aspects. Even if the final rating is good, still he gets an opportunity to improve his working in case there are remarks regarding his working to be unsatisfactory in certain areas. In the Annual Confidential Reports of all the members of the petitioner-Union a form has been prescribed to be filled in by the assessing authority at the time of submission of his Annual Confidential Report where he is required to evaluate the working of an employee taking into consideration different aspects such as his knowledge, job performance, efficiency, conduct, attendance and complaint, if any. On the basis of the comments given in the evaluation report, final rating is determined. In case, only final rating is conveyed, the same does not give opportunity to an employee to improve his working in any of the area where some improvement is required. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent-Bank is ready and willing to supply to the members of the petitioner-Union final rating as is given to them by the assessing authority at the time of recording of their Annual Confidential Report. In case an employee requires, the management would furnish the detail of the assessment of evaluation report on various parameters as well.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The issue regarding communication of the entries in the Annual Confidential Report of an employee has been considered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt''s case (supra). It has been observed that every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him because non-communication thereof may adversely affect him. He will not have an opportunity to improve his working in the area where adverse comments may have been made against him even though over all rating may be good. The employee does not have any opportunity to make a representation against that entry for up-gradation. Relevant paras thereof are extracted below:-

13 ...... 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. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and another,

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

In our opinion, every entry in the ACR 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 up-gradation. 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.

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.

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

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 up-gradation. 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.

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.

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

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.

A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court shows that the object of writing confidential reports and making entries in various columns thereof is to assess the working of an employee from different angles and the object of communication thereof is to give him an opportunity to improve wherever he is lacking. The requirement now is to convey to him all the entries in his annual confidential report. It also gives opportunity to an employee to make representation for remarks in any of the column even if over-all rating may be good.

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the respondent-Bank is directed to furnish all the employees copies of complete Annual Confidential Report(s) including comments made in each of the column and not merely the final rating. The writ petition stands disposed of.