Sandeep Vashisht vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—This writ petition has been filedunder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing adverse entry inthe Annual Confidential Report for the year 2004-2005 by the Accepting Officer. The ReportingOfficer graded the Petitioner as ''A-Very Good'' whereas the Accepting Officer has recorded in the following terms :

I do not agree. The employee is only ''Average-B''.

It transpires that the Petitioner joined the Fisheries Department, Punjab, as Fisheries Officer in the year 1987 and was promoted as Senior Fisheries Officer in the year1998. The Petitioner remained posted as Senior Fisheries Officer in the Office of Respondent No. 3 i.e. Assistant Director, Fisheries, Mini Secretariat, Ropar, Punjab, from the year 2002 to 2006 and thereafter, was sent on deputation to Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh.

For the year 2003-2004, the Reporting Officer graded the Petitioner as ''Very Good'' and the same was accepted by the Accepting Officer. For the year 2004-2005, the Petitioner was again graded as ''Very Good'' by the Reporting Officer under whose supervision the Petitioner worked, however, the Accepting/ Reviewing Authority brought down the grade of the Petitioner to ''Average'' that is under challenge in this petition. Copy of the Annual Confidential Report has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.

Short argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that a case involving similar circumstances has been dealt with by this Court viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 13807 of 2008 titled ''Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 13807 of 2008'', decided on 26.2.2010. The said petition has been allowed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State contends that indeed the case of the Petitioner needs a re-look.

In Gurcharan Singh''s case (supra), the following has been held :

In the case in hand, the Reporting Officer has mechanically graded the Petitioner as ''Very Good'' or ''Good''; the Accepting Authority too has gone in the same fashion while downgrading the same as ''Average'' or ''Good''. It requires no special mention that a Reporting Officer has more opportunities to directly interact, super-vise and watch the performance of his subordinate(s) as compared to the Accepting Officer. It, however, does not preclude the Accepting Authority from disagreeing with the overall assessment made by the Reporting Officer and to form his own independent opinion but such an opinion, if adverse to the service career of the employee, ought to be founded upon some semblance of material or reasons to justify, lest it is termed as whimsical or fanciful and fails to satisfy the bare test of reasonableness. Unfortunately, no such exercise has been undertaken by the Ac-cepting Authority in the case in hand.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that the ''downgrading'' of the ACRs for the years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 only by the Accepting Authority is set aside, with a direction that these ACRs be put up before the then Accepting Officer, if he is still in service, who shall then objectively re-consider both the ACRs and give his accepting opinion. However, the said Accepting Authority shall not be precluded to form and reiterate the same opinion provided that the conclusions drawn are founded upon some material/reasons. The Ac-cepting Authority shall give his final opinion as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and depending upon the overall grading to be earned by the Petitioner in both the ACRs that his claim for promotion shall be re-considered by the DPC, if so required.

In view of the totality of facts and circumstances noticed above, the petition is allowed to the extent that the entry made by the Accepting/ Reviewing Officer for the year 2004 2005 in the Annual Confidential Report of the Petitioner is set aside with a direction that the said entry be put up before the then Accepting Officer, if he is still in service, who shall then objectively re-consider the issue. It is made clear that the Accepting Officer shall not be precluded to form and reiterate the same opinion provided that the conclusions drawn are founded upon some material/ reasons. The Accepting Officer shall give his final opinion within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.

In case the Accepting Officer who then evaluated the Petitioner is not in service ,in that eventuality, the Director and Warden of Fisheries, Punjab, shall be at liberty to consider the issue and take a decision.