Om Prakash Sinha vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Om Prakash Sinha, a Constable in the Excise Department, filed a writ petition challenging a promotion order dated September 29, 2023, issued by the Commissioner Excise, Raipur. He sought his own promotion to the post of Sub Inspector Excise, effective from the same date, with consequential benefits, and requested an upgrade of his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2017 from 'D-Poor' to 'उत्कृष्ट (क)'. The petitioner contended that adverse entries in his 2016-17 ACR, stating a departmental enquiry was pending and that he was ineligible for promotion, were not communicated to him. He also argued that no departmental enquiry was initiated, and he was not given an opportunity to represent against these entries. Furthermore, he pointed out that the 2017 ACR, obtained under the RTI Act, only bore the reporting authority's signature, unlike other ACRs which included signatures of reviewing and accepting authorities. The State argued that the petitioner had submitted his ACRs with his application for promotion, implying he was aware of their contents, and that he had not submitted a representation for upgrade like another employee, Nand Kumar Dahariya, whose ACR was subsequently corrected.

Held

The Court held that the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2017 (2016-17) could not have been considered for his promotion. This was based on two primary reasons. Firstly, the adverse entries within the ACR, including the mention of a pending departmental enquiry and the grading of 'D-Poor', were not communicated to the petitioner. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Devdutt v. Union of India and Others, emphasizing that uncommunicated adverse ACRs cannot be used against an employee for promotion. Secondly, the ACR for 2017, obtained under the RTI Act, was incomplete as it only bore the signature of the reporting authority and lacked the signatures of the reviewing and accepting authorities, a procedural deficiency not present in the petitioner's ACRs from other years. The Court noted that the State had not provided any documentation to show that a departmental enquiry was initiated and pending against the petitioner in 2017. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner's candidature for promotion, ignoring the uncommunicated and procedurally incomplete ACR of 2017, and to pass a fresh speaking order within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2016-17, containing adverse entries regarding a pending departmental enquiry and ineligibility for promotion, was required to be communicated to the petitioner before being considered for promotion, as per the principles laid down in Devdutt v. Union of India and Others? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ACR for the year 2016-17, which lacked the signatures of the reviewing and accepting authorities, rendering it incomplete according to departmental procedure, could be considered for promotion? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: - The adverse entries in the 2016-17 ACR were not communicated, violating principles of natural justice and the ruling in Devdutt v. Union of India. - No departmental enquiry was initiated, making the entry about a pending enquiry erroneous. - The 2016-17 ACR was incomplete as it lacked the signatures of reviewing and accepting authorities, unlike other ACRs. Revenue/State's arguments: - The petitioner was aware of the ACR's contents as he submitted it with his promotion application. - The petitioner did not submit a representation to upgrade the ACR, unlike another employee whose representation was considered.