The Union of India vs S. Yaseen Saheb

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—In these writ petitions, the only question to be decided is as to whether the down-graded remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports (''ACRs'' for short) of the public servant should be communicated to the concerned public servant or not and if the same are not communicated, what would be the effect of such non-communication. The aforementioned question is fully answered by the Apex Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . The Apex Court in the said judgment has laid down that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period and such communication helps in achieving threefold objectives viz., (a) The communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. (b) On being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. (c) Communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. In the very judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in Satya Narain Shukla Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and K.M. Mishra Vs. Central Bank of India, and the other decisions of the Apex Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a good law.

In view of the same, the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the adverse remarks made against the respondents in the ACRs should have been communicated. Since the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, no interference is called for.

Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.