Reporting Authority Has To Be Superior Officer From IFS Except In Case Of PCCF Rank: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that it is only with regard to PCCF that the “reporting authority” would be a person to whom he reports and who is superior to him in rank.
Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that except the PCCF (Principal Chief Conservator of Forests), the “reporting authority” has to be a superior officer from the IFS (Indian Forest Service).
The Court clarified thus in a batch of Applications pertaining to an issue as to whether the officers in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) would be a “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” of the officers working in the IFS.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “The legal position as approved by this Court in two separate orders of this Court and as rightly understood by the MoEF as could be seen from its letter dated 8th November 2001 is that insofar as writing of ACRs up to the rank of APCCF is concerned, the “reporting authority” should be the immediate superior authority in the Forest Department. The position is clear as regards “reviewing authority” or “reporting authority” in relation to officers up to the rank of APCCF. It is clear that except the PCCF, the “reporting authority” has to be a superior officer from the IFS.”
The Bench added that it is only with regard to PCCF that the “reporting authority” would be a person to whom he reports and who is superior to him in rank.
Amicus Curaie K. Parameshwar and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh State.
Facts of the Case
The Applications in this case had challenged the Government Order (GO) dated June 29, 2024, notified by the Madhya Pradesh Government with regard to writing Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) of the officers belonging to the IFS. The Applicants had a grievance with regards to the “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” as prescribed in the said GO, insofar as certain posts in the IFS are concerned. The Applicants also had a grievance with regard to the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said GO which read as under –
“2. Before evaluating the performance of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), the concerned Conservator or Chief Conservator of Forest (Reporting Authorities) will seek a note from the District Collector. Similarly and before evaluating the performance of the Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development) will seek a note from the Divisional Commissioner and these notes shall be considered during the time of Performance Appraisal Report (PAR).
3. Comments by Collector and Divisional Commissioner on performance of Indian Forest Service officers in field positions on areas such as MANREGAS, Joint Forest Management, Forest Rights Act, land acquisition for development projects, mining, district planning committee decisions, livelihood and skill development, district archeological and tourism council, implementation initiatives related to any other development will be sent on a separate sheet.”
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the submissions of the counsel, observed, “No doubt that, if necessary, the State Governments can provide that the Collectors and Commissioners can record their comments on a separate sheet about the performance of the IFS officers in relation to the implementation of developmental work funded by the district administration. However, the same is again required to be considered by a superior departmental officer of the IFS.”
The Court was of the view that the impugned GO is in violation of specific directions issued by the Apex Court vide its Orders dated September 22, 2000 and April 19, 2024.
“… except the State of Madhya Pradesh, all the other States are scrupulously adhering to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid orders. We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature inasmuch as the said G.O. which is in violation of the aforesaid orders of this Court dated 22nd September 2000 and 19th April 2024 has been issued without even seeking clarification/modification of this Court”, it further held.
The Court said that it could have very well proceeded to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers responsible for issuance of such GO, however, it refrains itself from doing so.
“The said G.O. being in violation of the directions of this Court is liable to be quashed and set aside. … The impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2004 is held to be in violation of the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings dated 22nd September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case) which is reiterated and is consequently quashed and set aside”, it concluded.
The Court also directed the Madhya Pradesh State to reframe the rules by strictly adhering to the directions issued in the case of Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017), within a period of one month.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Applications and quashed the Government Order.
Cause Title- In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the officers of the Indian Forest Service (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 748)
