Jaydipkumar Dineshchandra Joshi vs State Of Gujarat

Biren Vaishnav, J

Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction that the order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal dated 17.3.2021 passed in Referral Application No.06/2020/359 be quashed and set aside and for a further direction to the Reporting Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority to appropriately evaluate the petitioner in the Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) of the petitioner for the service periods of 1.8.2019 to 5.12.2019 and 6.12.2019 to 31.3.2020.

The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner - a Direct Recruit Officer to the Gujarat Administrative Services, Class-I was appointed in the cadre of the Deputy Collector with effect from 1.1.1996. In the course of his duty, he has been posted as Deputy Collector, Godhra and other position and it is his case that his service career is very good. The petitioner was suspended from 24.2.2010 to 17.6.2018 which was pursuant to a private complaint which came to be filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was discharged from the criminal proceedings by this Court. On a challenge by the State to the order of discharge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 25.4.2022, the Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) was dismissed.

3.1. The petitioner, was also sought to be made an accused in FIR being I - CR No.8 of 2015. Subsequently on proceedings filed before this Court, the order of suspension was revoked. All Class-I Officers of the State are evaluated on the basis of their performance for a specific period and Performance Appraisal Report (for short, hereinafter referred to as `PAR’) grade is given. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.7.2018 to 15.12.2018, the petitioner got 87 out of 100 marks by the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Authority. For the period from 16.12.2018 to 31.3.2019, the petitioner secured 71 marks, out of 100. For the period from 1.8.2019 to 5.12.2019, the petitioner was awarded 51, out of 100 marks by the Cadre Controlling Authority which was confirmed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal.

Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jay Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that for the period from 6.12.2019 to 31.3.2020, the petitioner who had secured 72 marks by the Reporting Officer found that the Reviewing Authority decreased it to 51 which, in turn, was confirmed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. He would invite the attention of the Court to the remarks of the Reporting Authority which mentioned that, “he is very good and honest officer and hardworking and dedicated to the duties.” The Reviewing Authority remarked that “behaving as if just killing time in this assignment which he considers to be a side posting and as if he is waiting for the time to be over. He has become happy go lucky kind of a man hardly bothered about his duty, lacks initiative and spirit to work under uncomfortable conditions.” The representation of the petitioner also was rejected and when a Referral Application was made, the Tribunal confirmed the order.

4.1. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate would therefore submit that the Reviewing Authority has not provided any basis or justification for downgrading the remarks on 72 to 51. The remarks were premeditatedly stated which tantamounts to assassination of petitioner’s character.

4.2. Mr. Desai would further submit that the Reviewing Authority has not provided any concrete reasons for downgrading the petitioner. No notice was provided to the petitioner nor was the petitioner formally informed as to why his performance has been shown as critical.

4.3. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, Mr. Desai would submit that the order is absolutely unreasoned. Drawing the Court’s attention to the notification of the General Administration Department dated 31.3.2018, Mr. Desai would submit that the reasons cannot be considered as an evaluation. He would further submit that the petitioner, has been considered suitable for promotion to the All India Administrative Service by the Departmental Promotion Committee, Delhi on 3.9.2020. Therefore, the assessment is bad.

Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader assisted by Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent – State would make the following submissions:

5.1. She would submit that vide the Government Resolution dated 4.3.2014, PAR concept has come into and force instead of Confidential Report, the evaluation is done through PAR. The State Government is uniformly forwarding the Performance Appraisal. The Policy envisages that after the assessment by the Reporting Authority, the same is evaluated by the Reviewing Authority and the Officer concerned is then intimated regarding his assessment. The Officer is entitled to make a representation. For the first period from 1.8.2019 to 5.12.2019, the Cadre Controlling Authority (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the CCA’) evaluated and gave 51 marks whereas in the second period from 6.12.2019 to 31.3.2020, the 51 marks were confirmed even by the Reviewing Authority. She would support the order of the Tribunal which according to her was according to the policy of the State. The authorities cannot be said to have committed any error or irregularity. The assessment was done as per the schedule, the petitioner did not raise any grievance regarding the appointment of the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer and the appraisal made for each years was in accordance with the policy. She would rely on a decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Srikant Chapekar reported in 1992(4) SCC 689 and contend that the scope of interference in the matters pertaining to remarks and appraisal is limited.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the perusal of the order of the Tribunal indicates that it has delved into the merits of the matter, however, no reasons seem to be coming-forth as to why and for what reasons the petitioner’s remarks were downgraded from 72 to 51.

Perusal of the remarks of the Reporting Authority would indicate that the assessment made for the period in question showed that the petitioner was an honest officer. The CCA / the Reviewing Authority for the reasons that are wanting to come forward assessed the petitioner as an Officer who was “happy go lucky kind of a man hardly bothered about his duty” and “behaving as if just killing time in the assignment.”

Looking to the arguments made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, what is indicated is that the evaluation for the period from 20.7.2018 to 15.12.2018 had shown that the petitioner had secured 87 marks and 71 marks for the period from 16.12.2018 to 31.3.2019. There was nothing to indicate a severe down-fall in the assessment of the petitioner’s performance to downgrade him to 51. Further, it is nowhere indicated and it was incumbent upon the authority while downgrading the remarks of the petitioner which tantamounted to character assassination to at-least issue a notice to the petitioner. In accordance with the policy dated 31.3.2018, the Reviewing Authority or the Reporting Authority has to fill in the failures of the officer in the pen-picture. There is no reason as to how and on what basis the Reviewing Authority had a stark difference of opinion from that of the Reporting Authority to downgrade the petitioner from 72 to 51. The Reviewing Authority, therefore, in the opinion of this Court violated the directions by not providing a reasoned order justifying the conclusion. The evaluation, therefore, on the part of the respondents for the period from 16.12.2019 to 31.3.2020 is held to be illegal, unjust and improper.

Thereby, the order of the Tribunal dated 17.3.2022 is quashed and set aside and the evaluation for the periods from 1.8.2019 to 5.12.2019 and 6.12.2019 to 31.3.2020 as referred to hereinabove is held to be unjust. The respondents are directed to appropriately evaluate the petitioner for the aforesaid period in question.

The petition is allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.