H. L. Hidco vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the Under Secretary, being an officer lower in rank than the Commissioner (the petitioner's reporting authority), was not competent to decide the petitioner's representations and review representations against adverse ACR entries. This was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Dev Dutt, which mandates that such representations must be decided by an authority higher than the one who made the entry, to avoid an 'appeal from Caesar to Caesar'. The Court also found that the impugned orders were un-reasoned and non-speaking, failing to provide a proper consideration of the petitioner's exhaustive representations and review representations. The Court relied on Gurdial Singh Fijji and Dev Dutt, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions and the opportunity for an employee to represent against adverse remarks. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the State was directed to consider the petitioner's review representations on their own merits by a reasoned and speaking order within two months.

Facts

The petitioner, H.L. Hidco, Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax & GST Department, challenged orders rejecting his review representations for expunging adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The petitioner had previously received 'very good' gradings from 2011 to 2015. His representations and review representations were rejected by the Under Secretary, who is subordinate to the reporting authority (Commissioner). The petitioner argued that these rejections were by unreasoned orders and by an incompetent authority. The State contended that the downgrades reflected a fall in performance and that representations were considered by competent authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders rejecting the petitioner's representations and review representations against adverse remarks in his ACRs are liable to be quashed for being non-speaking and un-reasoned, contrary to the principles laid down in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and others? 2. Whether the Under Secretary, being subordinate to the reporting authority (Commissioner), was competent to decide the petitioner's review representations against adverse ACR entries, as per the Supreme Court's decisions in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection orders were non-speaking and un-reasoned, violating natural justice principles. He further contended that the Under Secretary lacked the authority to decide his review representations, as this authority should be higher than the reporting officer, citing Supreme Court precedents. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that writing ACRs is the employer's prerogative and cannot be dictated by the employee. They asserted that the downgrades were based on observed performance decline and that representations were considered and rightly rejected by competent authorities in accordance with law.