Supreme Court Clarifies the Importance of ACRs in Promotions: Sivanandi vs. Rajeev Kumar (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2nd February 2017

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J. and Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Can an officer be penalized for delays in the writing of their Annual Confidential Report (ACR)? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning promotions within the Indian Police Service. The Court held that an ACR is a part of an officer’s service record and cannot be ignored for promotion purposes simply because it was written late. This judgment clarifies that officers should not be disadvantaged due to administrative delays beyond their control. The bench comprised of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Prafulla C. Pant, with the judgment authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur.

Case Background

The appellant, P. Sivanandi, was directly recruited as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Tamil Nadu Police on or about May 6, 1985. In 1994-95, he was considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) by a Select Committee. The Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from April 1, 1989, to March 31, 1994, were to be considered for his promotion. Initially, the Select Committee graded Sivanandi as ‘Good’ on March 7, 1995, but this was done without considering his ACR for 1992-93 (which was missing) and a portion of his ACR for 1993-94 (from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993, which had not been written). He was later promoted to the IPS in the subsequent year, with his year of allotment being 1993. However, this promotion was challenged, leading to a fresh selection process.

A Review Select Committee met on March 24, 1999, to reconsider Sivanandi’s promotion to the IPS for the year 1994-95. By this time, the missing ACR for 1992-93 had been located, and the ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993, was also available. This latter ACR had been written by the Reporting Officer on November 14, 1994, reviewed on January 19, 1996, and accepted on January 27, 1996. Based on these additional ACRs, Sivanandi was graded ‘Very Good’ and promoted to the IPS with the year of allotment being 1991. Aggrieved by this, the private respondents challenged Sivanandi’s selection before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) initially set aside the selection process for 1994-95, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Following this, a Review Select Committee was constituted, which considered Sivanandi’s missing ACR for 1992-93 and the delayed ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993. The Tribunal later allowed the applications filed by the private respondents, finding that the ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993, was invalid since it was written beyond the period prescribed by the State Government. However, the Tribunal held that the missing ACR for 1992-93 was rightly considered. Sivanandi then challenged this decision in the Madras High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s view, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, specifically Regulation 5, which outlines the procedure for preparing a list of officers suitable for promotion. Regulation 5(4) states:

“The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as ‘outstanding’ ‘very good’ ‘Good’ or ‘Unfit’ as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records.”

This regulation mandates that the Selection Committee must assess officers based on their “overall relative assessment of their service records.” The core question was whether an ACR, even if delayed, forms part of the “service record” and should be considered for promotion. The Supreme Court also considered the Government Order (GO) dated 4th April, 2007 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, which prescribed a period for writing an ACR. The court interpreted that the prescription of a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but directory.

Arguments

Appellant (P. Sivanandi):

• Argued that the ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993, should have been considered by the Review Select Committee.
• Contended that the delay in writing the ACR should not invalidate it, as the delay was not his fault.
• Relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Mohanasundaram v. R. Nanthagopal & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 172] which held that the prescription of a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but directory.

Union Public Service Commission (UPSC):

• Supported the Review Select Committee’s decision, arguing that the ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993, was validly considered.
• Alternatively, argued that even if the ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993, was excluded, it would not change Sivanandi’s overall grading.
• Stated that the earlier missing ACR of 1992-93 was the primary reason for Sivanandi being graded ‘Very Good’.

Private Respondents:

• Argued that the ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993, was invalid because it was written beyond the period prescribed by the State Government.
• Contended that Sivanandi’s selection was therefore vitiated.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of an officer forms a part of his ‘service record’ and whether it could be ignored for the purposes of his promotion merely on the ground that it was written after some delay.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• G. Mohanasundaram v. R. Nanthagopal & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 172] – Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon to establish that the prescription of a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but directory.
• Christopher Nelson v. U.P.S.C. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1299-1305 of 1999 etc.) – Supreme Court of India: This case was mentioned as it led to the fresh selection process.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955: This regulation outlines the procedure for preparing a list of officers suitable for promotion and mandates that the Selection Committee must assess officers based on their “overall relative assessment of their service records”.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in G. Mohanasundaram v. R. Nanthagopal & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 172]* , holding that the prescription of a period for writing an ACR is directory, not mandatory.
• The Supreme Court mentioned the case of Christopher Nelson v. U.P.S.C. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1299-1305 of 1999 etc.) to provide the background of the case.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 to mean that the entire service record, including delayed ACRs, must be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an officer should not be penalized for administrative delays beyond their control. The Court emphasized that the ACR is a crucial part of an officer’s service record and must be considered for promotion, regardless of delays in its preparation. The Court also highlighted the importance of a complete service record in the promotion process and that the prescription of a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but directory. The Court also noted that the UPSC’s submission that the ACR for 1992-93 was the primary reason for Sivanandi’s ‘Very Good’ grading also weighed in the mind of the court.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court was wrong in concluding that the Review Select Committee could not consider Sivanandi’s ACR for the period from April 1, 1993, to July 15, 1993. The Court emphasized that the ACR is an integral part of an officer’s service record and should not be ignored due to delays in its preparation. The Court stated:

“In our opinion, the ACR of an officer forms a part of his service record and he cannot be prejudiced merely because his superior officers delayed writing it.”

The Court also relied on its decision in G. Mohanasundaram v. R. Nanthagopal & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 172], where it was held that the prescription of a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but directory. The Court observed that the delay in writing and reviewing Sivanandi’s ACR was beyond his control and should not disadvantage him. The Court stated:

“The writing and review of his ACR was beyond his control and we do not see any rational basis on which Sivanandi could be disadvantaged merely because his superior officers were lax in the discharge of their responsibilities.”

The Court further noted that the Review Select Committee with the UPSC had considered Sivanandi’s case on merit and that their view was not perverse. The Court also noted that the UPSC had submitted that the ACR for the period 1992-93, which was earlier missing, was what tilted the scales in Sivanandi’s favor. The court stated:

“That being so we do not think it proper to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Review Select Committee with the UPSC on the basis of the service record of Sivanandi more so when it was the submission of the UPSC that what tilted the scales in his favour was his ACR for the period 1992-93 which was earlier missing and which was not taken into consideration on an earlier occasion.”

The Court concluded that Sivanandi was entitled to be promoted to the IPS with the year of allotment as 1991. The Court set aside the order of the Madras High Court and allowed the appeals, granting Sivanandi all consequential benefits.

Key Takeaways

• ACRs are a crucial part of an officer’s service record and should not be ignored for promotion purposes.
• Officers should not be penalized for delays in the preparation of their ACRs if the delay is not attributable to them.
• The prescription of a period for writing an ACR is directory, not mandatory.
• The entire service record of an officer must be considered for promotion.
• This judgment ensures that officers are not disadvantaged due to administrative lapses beyond their control.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Sivanandi be entitled to all consequential benefits arising from his promotion to the IPS with the year of allotment as 1991.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable. The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) is an integral part of an officer’s service record and cannot be disregarded for promotion purposes simply because it was written after some delay. The Supreme Court clarified that the prescription of a time limit for writing an ACR is directory, not mandatory. This judgment reinforces the principle that officers should not be penalized for administrative delays beyond their control. This decision also reiterates the importance of considering the entire service record of an officer during promotion assessments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in P. Sivanandi vs. Rajeev Kumar & Ors. clarifies that an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) is a vital part of an officer’s service record and cannot be ignored for promotion purposes due to delays in its preparation. The Court emphasized that officers should not be disadvantaged by administrative delays that are beyond their control. This decision upholds the principle of fairness and ensures that promotion decisions are based on a comprehensive assessment of an officer’s service record. The Court set aside the Madras High Court’s order and upheld the Review Select Committee’s decision to promote Sivanandi to the IPS with the year of allotment as 1991.

Category

✓ Service Law

✓ Promotion

✓ Annual Confidential Report

✓ Service Record

✓ Indian Police Service

✓ Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955

✓ Regulation 5, Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955

FAQ

Q: What is an Annual Confidential Report (ACR)?

A: An ACR is a performance evaluation report of an officer, prepared annually by their superior officers. It is a crucial document in the officer’s service record and is considered for promotions and other career advancements.

Q: Can an ACR be ignored if it is written late?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that an ACR cannot be ignored for promotion purposes simply because it was written after some delay. The Court held that the prescription of a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but directory.

Q: What if the delay in writing the ACR is not my fault?

A: The Supreme Court has stated that officers should not be penalized for delays in the preparation of their ACRs if the delay is not attributable to them. The Court emphasized that the writing and review of an ACR is beyond the officer’s control.

Q: What does the Supreme Court mean by “service record”?

A: The “service record” includes all documents related to an officer’s career, including their ACRs. The Supreme Court has clarified that ACRs are an integral part of the service record and should be considered during promotion assessments.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment for future promotions?

A: This judgment ensures that officers are not disadvantaged due to administrative lapses beyond their control. It mandates that promotion decisions must be based on a complete assessment of an officer’s service record, including delayed ACRs, and that the prescription of a time limit for writing an ACR is directory, not mandatory.