Supreme Court Orders Review of Financial Upgrade and Promotion for CSIR Employee: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2019

Citation: [Not Available in the source]

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can an employee be denied financial benefits and promotions if their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are not communicated to them? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving an employee of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The Court emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in public administration, ruling that non-communication of ACRs is a violation of natural justice. This judgment has significant implications for employees across various government and autonomous bodies.

Case Background

The appellant, Anil Kumar, was an employee of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). He was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for financial upgradation effective from 10 May 2011. He was also not promoted to the post of Senior Controller of Administration/Senior Deputy Secretary for the vacancies of 2013-2014. The CSIR denied him these benefits, stating that he did not meet the required performance benchmark of “Very Good” in his ACRs.

The appellant’s ACRs for the years 2003-2004, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 were below the benchmark required for financial upgradation. These gradings were communicated to the appellant on 9 July 2014, after which he submitted a representation. However, his representation was not considered when the Screening Committee took up his case for financial upgradation. Additionally, junior officers were promoted, while the appellant was not.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the CSIR’s decision, stating that CSIR is an autonomous body and not bound by the Union of India’s circulars on ACR communication. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, which rejected his claim. The Tribunal stated that CSIR, being an autonomous body, was not bound by the circulars of the Union of India regarding communication of ACRs. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant did not meet the “Very Good” benchmark for financial upgradation and was graded as “good” by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the Tribunal’s decision, leading the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the principles of natural justice and fairness in public administration. The Court referred to its previous judgments in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 566], which established the requirement to communicate all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of public servants to them within a reasonable period. This is to enable the employee to make a representation for upgradation. The Court stated that non-communication of ACRs has civil consequences, affecting chances of promotion and other benefits, and is therefore arbitrary.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he was entitled to financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme adopted by CSIR.
• He contended that the non-communication of his ACRs, in which he did not meet the required benchmark, violated the principles of natural justice and the Office Memorandums (O.Ms) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training.
• He submitted that he was not given an opportunity to submit his representation when the Screening Committee took up his case for financial upgradation.
• He argued that the CSIR was bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 725], which mandated the communication of all ACR entries.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that CSIR, being an autonomous body, is not bound by the circulars issued by the Union of India.
• They contended that CSIR had adopted the requirement of conveying ACRs from a specific future date and that this decision could not be questioned.
• They stated that the appellant did not meet the benchmark of “Very Good” for financial upgradation and was graded “good” by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion, hence, he was not entitled to either.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the non-communication of ACRs to the appellant violated the principles of natural justice and fairness.
2. Whether CSIR, as an autonomous body, was bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court on the communication of ACRs.
3. Whether the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to submit a representation against adverse ACR entries before his case was considered for financial upgradation and promotion.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the non-communication of ACRs to the appellant deprived him of the opportunity to submit a representation, which is a violation of natural justice. The Court emphasized that CSIR, despite being an autonomous body, was bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 725]: The Court followed this judgment, stating that it laid down the law that all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court regarding communication of ACRs.
• Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2009) 16 SCC 146]: The Court noted that this judgment had adopted the same principle as in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 725].
• Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 566]: The Court affirmed the correctness of the view taken in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 725], noting that it helps in achieving transparency and natural justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of natural justice and fairness in public administration. The Court emphasized that transparency in the evaluation of public servants is essential for ensuring that they have the opportunity to improve their performance and seek redressal if they believe their evaluations are unfair. The Court was also clear that no authority can claim a privilege not to comply with the judgments of the Supreme Court, irrespective of their autonomous status.

The Court stated, “In view of the above statement of law, both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in coming to the conclusion that CSIR being an autonomous entity and having adopted the O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training with effect from a specified date, the appellant could not make a grievance of the non-communication of the ACRs for the relevant period.”

The Court also noted, “The failure to communicate the ACRs deprived the appellant of the opportunity to submit his representation in the matter of financial upgradation.”

Furthermore, the Court emphasized, “No authority can, however, claim a privilege not to comply with a judgment of this Court. Once the law was enunciated in Dev Dutt’s case (supra), all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court. CSIR was no exception.”

Key Takeaways

• All entries in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of public servants must be communicated to them within a reasonable period.
• Non-communication of ACRs is a violation of natural justice and can affect an employee’s chances of promotion and other benefits.
• Autonomous bodies are also bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court.
• Employees have the right to submit a representation against adverse ACR entries before their case is considered for financial upgradation and promotion.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The appellant was granted four weeks to submit his representation regarding his ACRs for the years where he did not meet the benchmark for financial upgradation.
• The respondents were directed to consider the representation and communicate the outcome to the appellant within two months.
• Based on the outcome of the representation, the appellant’s case for financial upgradation was to be considered afresh.
• If the ACRs were upgraded, the appellant’s case for promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration was to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
• The exercise was to be carried out with reference to the date on which his junior in service was promoted.
• The appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits if his case was considered favorably.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that all entries in the ACRs of public servants must be communicated to them within a reasonable period, regardless of whether the employer is an autonomous body. This judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice and transparency in public administration. It reiterates the position of law laid down in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 566].

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anil Kumar vs. Union of India underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in the evaluation of public servants. The Court held that non-communication of ACRs is a violation of natural justice and that all instrumentalities of the State, including autonomous bodies like CSIR, are bound by the judgments of the Supreme Court. The Court ordered a review of the appellant’s case for financial upgradation and promotion, ensuring that he would be given a fair opportunity to present his case.