Performance Of Person Cannot Be Unsatisfactory & Outstanding In Same Year: Rajasthan HC Quashes Adverse Entries Made In ACR Of RTO

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has quashed the adverse entries made in the ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of the RTO (Regional Transport Officer) saying that the performance of a person cannot be unsatisfactory and outstanding in the same year.

A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held, “Sudden adverse remarks in the half year of the ACR of the petitioner suffer from biasness. The ACRs of the petitioner for the period commencing w.e.f. 01.04.2005 to 16.12.2005 and 16.07.2005 to March 2016 are self contradictory. The performance of a person like the petitioner cannot by unsatisfactory and outstanding in the same year. Hence, the adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner pertaining to the period 01.04.2005 to 16.12.2005 are not tenable in the eye of law.”

The Bench said that the adverse entries made in the half year of the ACR in question are not in keeping with the petitioner’s past record and the higher authority did not make any attempt to find out the real cause for his sudden downgrading in the same ACR.

Advocate Sandeep Saxena represented the petitioner while Government Counsel Rupin Kala with Advocate P.S. Naruka represented the respondents.

Brief Facts -

The petitioner was holding the post of Additional Regional Transport Officer and was promoted to the post of Regional Transport Officer against the vacancies of 2005-2006. The said promotion order of the petitioner was recalled and the petitioner was given promotion to the said post against the vacancies of 2009-2010. The reason for delaying his promotion was the adverse entries recorded into the ACR of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2005-2006.

The petitioner served the Department for more than three decades and in his entire service career, his services remained unblemished and there were no complaints whatsoever against him and no charge sheet was ever being served to him. Without giving any advisory and without giving any notice, the ACR of the petitioner was downgraded to unsatisfactory while the work performance of the petitioner was excellent and several appreciations in this regard were given by the higher authorities in favour of the petitioner. He discharged his duties to the best satisfaction of the authorities and the pendency of the law cases was nil when such adverse entries were recorded in his ACR.

The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “It is relevant to note here that for the same year the ACR was filed for the period commencing from 16.07.2005 to March, 2006 and the Reporting Officer found the performance of the petitioner ‘outstanding’ and this fact was recorded in his ACR that the petitioner is an outstanding officer, very hard working and devoted to his job. He has ability to take responsibility and get work done from subordinates.”

The question that remained for consideration before the Court was how the work performance of the petitioner for the same year was taken differently and treated as ‘unsatisfactory’ and the same was treated as ‘outstanding’ after July 16, 2005.

“Record indicates that several appreciation letters were issued to the petitioner for his working performance and the pendency of the cases came to nil during his working. … It is worthy to note here that ACR of the petitioner for the questioned year were filled by the Reviewing Officer and not by the Reporting Officer who was not competent to fill the same however, at later stage when his comments were sought by the Department on the representation submitted by the petitioner, justifying his action, he recommended for taking sympathetic view of deleting the adverse entries in the ACR of the petitioner”, observed the Court.

The Court held that the ACR of the petitioner was filled by a person who was not competent to do so, hence, such adverse entries in such ACR are not valid as per the APAR instructions.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and expunged the adverse entries made in the petitioner’s ACR.

Cause Title- Jagdish Prasad v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment