The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that remarks made in employee’s annual confidential reports (ACR) created civil rights, adverse remarks must be reasoned.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta has observed that Remarks made in the annual performance appraisal report or annual confidential reports, reflects the working of an individual. It creates civil rights because if the ACRs are tone-down or adverse remarks are entered, the concerned person would be deprived of his promotion as well as benefit of MACP for that period. Thus, before making any such remarks, reasons have to be mentioned. In Dev Dutt vs Union of India 2008 (8) SCC 725, the Supreme Court has stressed that even lowering down of ACRs from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Good’, may be treated as adverse and the same should be communicated to the concerned person.
The petitioner submitted that the adverse remarks had been entered into her ACR due to personal bias of SHO Sube Singh, who had been harassing her. Adverse remarks were challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.24220 of 2015 praying for expunging of adverse remarks for the period 23.11.2024 to 31.03.2015 and also prayed for quashing of order 16.09.2015 whereby her representation was rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana, wherein she had prayed for expunging doubtful integrity remarks from her ACR.
Feeling aggrieved against the said adverse remarks, the petitioner preferred writ petition and submitted that on account of the adverse remarks, she had been deprived of her due promotion to the post of Inspector from the date her juniors Sumitra Devi and Kamla Devi had been promoted i.e. 26.10.2016. Thereafter, she was compulsory retired vide order dated 30.08.2017 on attaining the age of 55 years. The petitioner A challenged the order dated 30.08.2017 in CWP No. 20943 of 2017. The order of compulsory retirement dated 30.08.2017 was stayed by the Court. However, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The court has held that the adverse remarks entered in the service record of the petitioner and the compulsory retirement order passed on the said basis are speck of arbitrariness more so as there is complete lack of material to justify such recording of ACR.
Case Details
Case Title: State Versus Rani Devi
Case No.: LPA No. LPA No.547 of 2021
Date: 28/05/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Saurabh Mohunta
Counsel For Respondent: Tejeshwar Singh
