Remarks Made In Annual Performance Appraisal Report Or Annual Confidential Reports Create Civil Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The State of Haryana and the other officers of the Police laid a challenge to a judgment whereby the Single Judge had allowed two writ petitions and directed the petitioner to be granted notional promotion accompanied by all her service benefits.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta said, “Remarks made in the annual performance appraisal report or annual confidential reports reflect the working of an individual. It creates civil rights because if the ACRs are tone-down or adverse remarks are entered, the concerned person would be deprived of his promotion as well as benefit of MACP for that period. Thus, before making any such remarks, reasons have to be mentioned.”

Deputy Advocate General Saurabh Mohunta represented the Appellant while Advocate Tejeshwar Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable at Gurugram in 1988 and, having participated in several sports activities and won several medals, she was granted adhoc promotion as Head Constable. She was also granted promotion as Sub-Inspector on an officiating basis with effect from July 1, 2004. When the petitioner was posted at Police Station, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, she was granted a commendation certificate by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram. However, she was transferred to Police Line, Gurugram, despite there being no complaint against her. She was issued an advisory alleging that she was interfering in the work of the I.O. of Police Station, Udyog Vihar, which amounted to dereliction of duty, and her integrity was brought into doubt.

While the petitioner was working as an Additional Station House Officer, adverse remarks were entered in her ACR for the period November 23, 2014 to March 31, 2015. The petitioner submitted that the adverse remarks had been entered into her ACR due to the personal bias of the SHO, who had been harassing her. She filed a Petition for quashing the order whereby her representation for expunging the remarks from her ACR was rejected. The adverse remarks were, therefore, challenged in a Civil Writ Petition. The Single Judge took up both the cases relating to promotion as well as adverse remarks and passed the impugned order.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Single Judge found that the adverse remark was wholly based on whims and fancies without there being any material document. On a perusal of the personal records of the Petitioner, the Bench found that there was a specific mention of her reliability being honest, dependable, disciplined at all times with special appreciation. But it was only when she was posted as Sub Inspector under the concerned SHO that a stray entry of adverse nature and doubtful integrity was entered.“It is settled law that no person becomes a thief in a day”, the Bench said.

As per the Bench, the Single Judge had correctly assessed regarding the sharp contradiction that crept in the working, as for the same year, the petitioner was awarded a commendation certificate. The Single Judge also noticed that the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, made adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner while the Deputy Commissioner did not find anything amiss with her record.

It was further noticed that the Commissioner of Police compulsorily retired the petitioner 12 days before her due date of retirement. “We, therefore, are satisfied that the adverse remarks entered in the service record of the petitioner and the compulsory retirement order passed on the said basis are a speck of arbitrariness, more so as there is a complete lack of material to justify such recording of ACR”, it noted.

The Bench further clarified, “...directions cannot be issued by this Court to promote a person from a particular date and the only direction the Court can grant is to issue Mandamus to the State to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion and pass suitable orders. We, therefore, modify the relief granted to the petitioner.”

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench directed the appellant State to consider the petitioner’s candidature for promotion with effect from the date her juniors were promoted as Inspector by ignoring the ACR. “She shall also be granted all consequential benefits, actual benefits with arrears of salary of the higher rank with interest @ 12%. We also direct that the petitioner’s retiral benefits shall be accordingly revised and arrears thereof shall also be released with interest @ 12%”, it ordered.

Cause Title: State of Haryana & Ors. v. Rani Devi (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:073020-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Deputy Advocate General Saurabh Mohunta

Respondent: Advocate Tejeshwar Singh

Click here to read/download Order