Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a petition filed by a retired Office Superintendent against the State of Gujarat and another respondent, challenging adverse remarks in her Annual Confidential Reports for 2009-10 and 2010-11. The petitioner had been appointed as Clerk in 1981 and promoted over time, retiring in 2016. The ACRs were communicated on 1 September 2012 and 6 September 2012, with the petitioner making representations in October and November 2012, which were rejected by the State in January 2013. The core legal issues were whether delayed communication of ACRs violates natural justice and whether adverse remarks can be considered for promotion. The petitioner argued that the delay, contravening Government Resolution dated 31 March 1989 and circulars dated 6 March 2004 and 1 May 2004, frustrated her right to representation and affected promotion prospects, citing precedents including State of Haryana v. P C Wadhwa and Manoj Sitaram Lokhande v. State of Gujarat. The respondent contended there was no delay as ACRs were communicated soon after finalization, and an alternative remedy existed before the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal. The court analyzed the Government Resolution, which mandated preparation and communication of ACRs within specific timelines, and found the ACRs were communicated much after the stipulated period, with no reasons provided for the delay. Relying on Manoj Sitaram Lokhande, the court held that delayed communication violates natural justice, as it deprives the employee of opportunity to represent, and thus adverse remarks cannot be considered for promotion. The court allowed the petition, directing that adverse remarks be expunged and not considered for promotion.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Annual Confidential Reports - Delayed Communication - Government Resolution dated 31 March 1989 - The petitioner's ACRs for 2009-10 and 2010-11 were communicated on 1 September 2012 and 6 September 2012 respectively, beyond the stipulated time under Government Resolution dated 31 March 1989 and circulars dated 6 March 2004 and 1 May 2004 - Held that delayed communication violates principles of natural justice and adverse remarks cannot be considered for promotion (Paras 7-8). B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Right to Representation - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 16 - The petitioner argued that delayed communication of ACRs frustrated her right to make effective representation and improve her work, prejudicially affecting her promotion prospects - Court found violation of natural justice as ACRs were not communicated within stipulated time, depriving petitioner of opportunity to represent (Paras 4.1, 8). C) Service Law - Promotion - Consideration of Adverse Remarks - Government Resolution dated 31 March 1989 - The petitioner sought expunging of adverse remarks in ACRs and declaration that they cannot be considered for promotion to Class II post - Court held that due to delayed communication, adverse remarks cannot be relied upon while considering promotion, following precedent in Manoj Sitaram Lokhande v. State of Gujarat (Paras 4.3, 8.1).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the delayed communication of Annual Confidential Reports for 2009-10 and 2010-11 violates principles of natural justice and whether the adverse remarks can be considered for promotion
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Adverse remarks in ACRs for 2009-10 and 2010-11 expunged and cannot be considered for promotion to Class II post.
