INDIA BUSINESS WORLD - May 11th - MAY 31st - 2008
ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THEM, RULES SUPREME COURT
In a boost to transparency in public administration, the Supreme Court has ruled that every entry in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of public servants barring defence officers must be communicated to them. Denial of such disclosure by the authorities is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, said apex court allowing an appeal of a public servant who had challenged denial of the details in his ACR by the authorities while deciding on his promotion.
A bench comprising Justice HK Sema and Justice Markandey Katju said, “in our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry.This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways :
- Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future;
- He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary”.
The court said that it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark (essential requirement) or not. Even if there is no bench mark, non-communication of an entry may adversely affect the employee’s chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a `good’ or `average’ or `fair’ entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a `very good’ or `outstanding’ entry.
Every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him” court said.
Justice Katju said, “we further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry; otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The state must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible”.
The appellant, Dev Dutt was working in the Border Roads Engineering Service. The authorities had not communicated about the grade awarded to him in his ACR during departmental promotions.
|
