Deputy Commissioner Not Competent To Assess Overall Performance Of SP: SC Upholds Gauhati HC Judgment Invalidating Rule 63(iii) of Assam Police Manual
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Gauhati High Court on the competence of the Deputy Commissioner to assess the overall performance of a Superintendent of Police (SP).
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court, that invalidated Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual (Manual) as it was conflicting with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 (Act, 2007).
The Court noted that Form I in Appendix II of the Rules 2007 outlines the performance appraisal process for IPS Officers up to the rank of Inspector General of Police, including SPs. However, Clause 6 in Rule 3 limits the Deputy Commissioner's competence, as 'Law and Order' is just one of twenty domains.
The Court also noted that Rules 1970/ Rules 2007 mandate that reporting, reviewing, and accepting authorities must be from the same service or department. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner's involvement in assessing SPs in Assam through Rule 63(iii) of the Manual conflicts with this rule and allows interference with the police force's internal organisation, violating Section 14(2) of the Act, 2007.
The Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed “the 1970 Rules/2007 Rules define reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities to mean that they must all be from the same service or department, intervention by the Deputy Commissioner during the exercise of performance assessment of SPs of the districts in the State of Assam, by virtue of Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, cannot be countenanced, being in direct conflict therewith, and would tantamount to permitting the Deputy Commissioner to interfere with the internal organization of the police force, which would be contrary to the mandate of Section 14(2) of the Act of 2007”.
Additional Advocate General Nalin Kohli appeared for the State and Senior Advocates Aman Lekhi and L. Narasimha Reddy appeared for the Respondent.
On December 5, 2017, the Gauhati High Court invalidated Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual (Manual), citing a direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 (Act, 2007). The State of Assam challenged this in the Home Department. On January 1, 2019, the Court prohibited coercive action, and on March 21, 2023, the Attorney General for India was consulted.
The case centred on determining the 'Reporting Authority' for Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers serving as District Superintendents of Police (SPs) in Assam. Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, contested by IPS Officers, was argued to be violative of Section 14(2) of the Act, 2007. The All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (Rules 1970) (replaced by the 2007 Rules), defining 'Reporting Authority,' 'Reviewing Authority,' and 'Accepting Authority,' raises questions about the validity of Rule 63(iii) in the context of the Act, 2007.
Under Rule 63(iii), the Court noted that the Deputy Commissioner initiated the ACR/APAR of an SP, reviewed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and then sent to higher authorities for acceptance. The Court noted a significant difference in the governance system under the Police Act, 1861, (Act of 1861) and the current structure, emphasizing the change in the Deputy Commissioner's role.
The Bench observed that given the 1970 Rules/2007 Rules requirement for reporting, reviewing, and accepting authorities to be from the same service or department, the Deputy Commissioner's intervention in performance assessment, as per Rule 63(iii), conflicts with Section 14(2) of the Act, 2007. The Court highlighted the applicability of the Rules, 2007, emphasizing that IPS Officers in Assam are entitled to these benefits. The Court rejected the notion that a Deputy Commissioner is the most suitable 'Reporting Authority' for SPs.
Observing that the definitions of 'Reporting Authority' and 'Reviewing Authority' in the 1970 Rules post-1987 and the 2007 Rules don't conflict, the Court emphasized that both must be from the same service or department. The Court referred to the cases of S. Gopal Reddy v State of A.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 596] and Sultana Begum v Prem Chand Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 373] while considering the necessity of harmonious construction and questioned whether a breach of this requirement under Rule 63(iii) could be allowed in Assam.
“These provisions must be harmoniously construed by restricting the power vesting in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14(1), by duly carving out what has been excepted under Section 14(2). Such harmonious construction would be necessary to give effect to both provisions, so that they operate without conflict and a head-on collision”, the Court added.
Relevant to this, the Court invoked Section 14(2) of the Act, 2007, ensuring harmony between Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) to avoid conflicts. The Court also noted that a Superintendent of Police is not subservient to a Deputy Commissioner, emphasizing Rule 25's provision allowing SPs to refer differences to higher authorities.
The Court referred to the cases of State Bank of India and others v Kashinath Kher and others [(1996) 8 SCC 762] and State of Haryana v P.C.Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and another [(1987) 2 SCC 602] and reiterated the principle that a 'Reporting Authority' should be of higher rank for objectivity and rejected the argument that the Deputy Commissioner is the most suitable assessor. The Court observed the inadequacy of overseeing one domain for an overall performance assessment, reinforcing that the Deputy Commissioners' intervention contradicts Section 14(2) of the Act, 2007.
“From the point of view of propriety and reasonableness and having regard to the intention behind the Rule, which is manifest, such an authority must be one superior in rank to the member of the service concerned. No doubt, these observations were made in the context of the unamended Rule 2(e) of the 1970 Rules, but the principle culled out is sound and still holds good”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: The State of Assam and others v Binod Kumar and others (2024 INSC 44)
Appearance:
Appellant: Nimisha Menon, Shuvodeep Roy and Saurabh Tripathi, Advocates.
Respondent: Somanadri Goud Katam, Ujjwal Sinha, Vijay Pal Namrata Trivedi, Sirajuddin, Aniket Seth, Snehil Sonam and Ritwiz Rishabh, Advocates.
