Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 748
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN RE: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORTS OF THE
OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN FOREST SERVICE
I.A. NO.172422 OF 2024
[Applications for Impleadment]
WITH
I.A. NO.172425 OF 2024
[Applications for Direction]
WITH
I.A. NO. 172427 OF 2024
[Application for Exemption from filing Official
Translation]
WITH
I.A. NO. 172429 OF 2024
[Application for appearing as Petitioner-in-Person]
WITH
I.A. NO. 179359 OF 2024
[Application for Ex-Party and Interim Stay]
WITH
I.A. NO. 290215 OF 2024
[Application for Impleadment]
WITH
I.A. NO. 290217 OF 2024
[Application for Direction]
WITH
I.A. NO. 105862 OF 2025
[Applications for Impleadment]
Signature Not Verified
WITH
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.05.21
12:30:22 IST
Reason:
I.A. NO. 105864 OF 2025
[Application for Direction]
1
WITH
I.A. NO. 105865 OF 2025
[Application for Exemption from filing Official
Translation]
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
IN THE MATTER OF:
GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL …APPLICANT
UNNAMATLA PRAKASHAM …APPLICANT
INDIAN FOREST SERVICE ASSOCIATION
(STATE UNIT) …APPLICANT
INDEX
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 3
II. SUBMISSIONS ......................................................................... 4
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ................................................. 7
(i) Statutory Provisions ............................................................ 7
(ii) Internal Communications ............................................... 10
(iii) Legal Precedents ............................................................. 17
(a) State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General
of Police and Another ........................................................... 17
(b) Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh ................ 21
(iv) Order of this Court in I.A. No.776 of 2002 in the present
proceedings ............................................................................. 26
(v) Recent judgment of this Court in State of Assam and
Others v. Binod Kumar and Others .......................................... 30
th
(vi) Impugned G.O. dated 29 June 2024 .............................. 32
IV. DIRECTIONS ...................................................................... 37
2
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The present batch of applications pertains to an issue as
to whether the officers in the Indian Administrative Service
(hereinafter referred to as, “IAS”) would be a “reporting
authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” of
the officers working in the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter
referred to as, “IFS”).
2. The present applications basically challenge the
th
Government Order dated 29 June 2024 (hereinafter referred
to as the, “said G.O.”) notified by the Government of Madhya
Pradesh with regard to writing Performance Appraisal Report
(hereinafter referred to as, “PAR”) of the officers belonging to
the IFS. The relevant part of the said G.O. reads thus:
“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
3
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.”
3. The applicants have a grievance with regards to the
“reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting
authority” as prescribed in the said G.O., insofar as certain
posts in the IFS are concerned. The applicants also have a
grievance with regard to the aforementioned paragraphs 2 and
3 of the said G.O.
II. SUBMISSIONS
4. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus
curiae and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. Shri Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae submits that
the said G.O issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh is
directly in violation of the judgments delivered by this Court in
the cases of State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS,
4
1
Inspector General of Police and Another , Santosh Bharti
2
v. State of Madhya Pradesh , and the order passed by this
th
Court in the present proceedings dated 19 April 2004. The
learned amicus curiae therefore submits that the said G.O. is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra , Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh submits
that as per the Order of Precedence of the Government of
rd
Madhya Pradesh dated 23 December 2011, the Additional
Chief Secretary (hereinafter referred to as, “ACS”) and the
Principal Secretary (hereinafter referred to as, “PS”) hold ranks
superior to that of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(hereinafter referred to as, “PCCF”). He further submits that in
accordance with the provisions as contained in clauses (2) and
(3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Madhya Pradesh has framed the Madhya Pradesh Government
Business (Allocation) Rules. He submits that under the said
Rules, each Secretariat Department is required to have a
Secretary to the Government (ACS/PS). It is submitted that for
1
(1987) 2 SCC 602
2
(2007) 15 SCC 273
5
the Forest Department, ACS/PS is the official administrative
head of the IFS.
7. The learned Solicitor General submits that the Forest
Officers and particularly the Divisional Forest Officer
(hereinafter referred to as, “DFO”) who is the Head of the
Division, discharges diverse responsibilities. It is submitted
that the DFO is also responsible for various duties like
conservation of forests, implementation of government
schemes, enforcement of forest laws, forest fire management,
legal matters, financial administration, and interdepartmental
coordination, amongst others. He submits that therefore, it is
necessary that the evaluation of the performance of DFOs
should be accepted by the Secretary of the Forest Department
who is normally an ACS/PS. He submits that similarly even
insofar as the PAR of the Chief Conservators of Forests
(hereinafter referred to as, “CCFs”) is concerned, the
“accepting authority” should be only ACS or PS. He further
submits that assigning PCCF or the Head of Forests as
“reviewing authority” or “accepting authority” for the
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (hereinafter
referred to as, “APCCF”) working in vertical roles at the
6
headquarters is not consistent with the revised appraisal
rules. He submits that the performance must be evaluated by
those who have continuing engagement with the officer’s work.
8.
Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General fairly
submits that ignoring the role of the ACS/PS in the PAR
channel of IFS officers would not only be contrary to legislative
intent but also inconsistent with principles of governance,
accountability and equity in public administration that
demand accountability through real supervision. He fairly
submits that in order to alleviate the fear in the minds of the
IFS officers, the State of Madhya Pradesh has agreed that it
will not insist on marking by the ACS/PS, instead, only
comments of the reviewing officers would be called for.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(i) Statutory Provisions
9. For examining the controversy, it will be relevant to refer
to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All-India Services Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as, “AIS Act”), which reads thus:
“ 3. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of
service .—(1) The Central Government may, after
consultation with the Governments of the States
concerned including the State of Jammu and
Kashmir and by notification in the Official Gazette,
make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the
7
conditions of service of persons appointed, to an all-
India Service.”
10. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the AIS Act, the Central Government, after
consultation with the Governments of the States concerned,
has made the All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules,
1970 (hereinafter referred to as, “1970 Rules”).
11. Rule 2 of the 1970 Rules provides various definitions. It
will be relevant to refer to the following definitions provided in
the 1970 Rules:
“ 2. Definitions .—In these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires:—
(a) ‘ accepting authority ’ means the authority who
was, during the period for which the confidential
report is written, immediately superior to the
reviewing authority and such other authority as may
be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government”;
………..
(e) ‘ reporting authority ’ means the authority who
was, during the period for which the confidential
report is written, immediately superior to the
member of the Service and such other authority as
may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;
(f) ‘ reviewing authority ’ means the authority who
was, during the period for which the confidential
report is written, immediately superior to the
reporting authority and such other authority as may
be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;”
8
12. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the AIS Act, the Central Government, after
consultation with the Governments of the States concerned,
th
by a notification dated 8 December 1987, has made the All-
India Services (Confidential Rolls) Second Amendment Rules,
1970, by which the definitions of “accepting authority”,
“reporting authority” and “reviewing authority” were amended,
which read thus:
“(a) ‘ accepting authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
reviewing authority as may be specifically empowered
in this behalf by the Government”;
………..
(e) ‘ reporting authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
member of the Service reported upon as may be
specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;
(f) ‘ reviewing authority ’ means authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
reporting authority as may be specifically empowered
in this behalf by the Government;”
13. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the AIS Act, the Central Government, after
consultation with the Governments of the States concerned,
made the All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report)
9
Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, “2007 Rules”). The
definitions of “accepting authority”, “reporting authority” and
“reviewing authority” as provided in the 2007 Rules, read thus:
accepting authority
“(a) ‘ ’ means the authority which
supervises the performance of the reviewing
authority as may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government”;
………..
(j) ‘ reporting authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
member of the Service reported upon as may be
specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;
(k) ‘ reviewing authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
reporting authority as may be specifically empowered
in this behalf by the Government;”
(ii) Internal Communications
14. For deciding the issue in question, it will also be
necessary to refer to certain clarifications and Office
Memorandum (hereinafter referred to as, “O.M.”) issued by the
Union of India.
th
15. Clause 4 of the clarification dated 28 December 1990
reads thus:
“ 4. Reporting Authority should be in a higher
grade of pay than the officers reported upon and
the Reviewing Authority should be in a higher
grade than the Reporting Authority.- I am directed
10
to refer to Rule 2(e) of the AIS (CR) Rules, 1970,
wherein the reporting authority has been defined as
the authority or authorities supervising the
performance of the member of the Service reported
upon as may be specifically empowered in this behalf
by the Government.
2. It appears that some States have kept in view the
seniority and pay scale of the reporting officer vis-à-
vis the Member of the Service reported upon while
assigning reporting authorities whereas others have
not. Instances have come to the notice of this
Department wherein ACRs of the members of All
India Service have been initiated by officers belonging
to the same batch or drawing pay in the same scale
as that of the officer reported upon.
3. It is suggested to the State Govts. that while
assigning reporting/reviewing authorities efforts may
be made to ensure that a member of the Service or
any other officer does not initiate the C.R. of another
member of the Service in the same grade of pay. It is
also desirable that the reviewing authority is in a
higher grade than the reporting authority within the
limits of administrative convenience.”
16. It can thus be seen that seniority and pay-scales of the
reporting officer vis-à-vis the Member of the Service reported
upon is required to be taken into consideration while assigning
reporting authorities. It further states that various instances
have come to notice wherein Annual Confidential Reports
(hereinafter referred to as, “ACRs”) of the Members of All India
Service have been initiated by officers belonging to the same
batch or drawing pay in the same scale as that of the officer
reported upon. It has therefore been suggested to the State
11
Governments that while assigning reporting/reviewing
authorities, efforts should be made to ensure that a Member
of the Service or any other officer does not initiate the
Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as, “C.R.”) of
another Member of the Service in the same grade or pay. It
further provides that it is desirable that the reviewing
authority is in a higher grade than the reporting authority
within the limits of administrative convenience.
17. It will also be relevant to refer to a letter of the Ministry
of Environment & Forest (hereinafter referred to as, “MoEF”)
th
dated 8 November 2001, which reads thus:
“(V) WRITING OF REPORTS OF MEMBERS OF THE
INDIAN FOREST SERVICE
1. Writing of Reports of members of the Indian
Forest Service.- Attention of the State Government
is invited to this Ministry’s letter No. 14/20/2000-SU
dated 28th September, 2000 vide which a copy of
order dated 22/09/2000 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in I.A. No. 424 (Civil Writ Petition No.
202 of 1995) : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad had
been forwarded for implementation of various
directions given by the Apex Court.
2. One of the directions of the Apex Court was in
regard to writing of Annual Confidential report of the
members of the Indian Forest Service. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court had directed that upto the officers of
the rank of Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests the reporting authority has to be the
immediately superior officer within the Forest
Department. It is only in the case of Principal Chief
12
Conservator of Forest that the reporting authority
would be a person other than the one belonging to
the Service because there is no one superior to him
within the EFS. Therefore, in his case the reporting
authority would be a person to whom he reports and
who is superior to him in hierarchy.
3. Keeping in view the directions given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, all the State Governments are
advised to ensure that for writing the Annual
Confidential Reports of the IFS officers upto the rank
of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
the reporting authority should be their immediate
superior authorities in the Forest Department. As
regards reviewing/reporting authority in relation to
officers of the rank of Addl. Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, the concerned authority
would person who is familiar with their work and that
will be the person to whom addl. PCCF/PCCF reports
and who is superior to them in rank and hierarchy.
4. The State Government may, if necessary direct the
Collectors and Commissioners to record their
comments on a separate sheet about the
performance of the IFS officers in relation to
implementation of developmental work (including 20-
point programme) funded by the District
Administration for being considered by the superior
departmental officers at the time of writing of ACRs.
5. The State Governments are requested to ensure
that the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of writing of ACRs, as explained
above, are strictly followed.”
18. It can thus be seen that the said letter specifically noted
the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings
nd 3
titled dated 22 September 2000 , wherein this Court had
3
(2007) 15 SCC 273
13
directed that up to the rank of APCCF, the “reporting
authority” had to be an immediate superior officer within the
Forest Department. It further noted that this Court had also
directed that it was only in the case of PCCF that the “reporting
authority” would be a person other than the one belonging to
the Forest Service because there was no one superior to
him/her within the IFS. It noted that this Court further
directed that in that case, the “reporting authority” would be a
person to whom he reported and who was superior to him in
hierarchy.
19. The aforesaid communication of the MoEF directed all
the State Governments to ensure that for writing the ACRs of
the IFS officers up to the rank of APCCF, the “reporting
authority” should be their immediate superior authorities in
the Forest Department. It further directed that regarding the
reviewing/reporting authority in relation to officers of the rank
of APCCF and PCCF, the concerned authority would be a
person who was familiar with their work and that would be the
person to whom APCCF/PCCF reported and who was superior
to them in rank and hierarchy. It further directed that the
State Governments may, if necessary, direct the Collectors and
14
Commissioners to record their comments on a separate sheet
about the performance of the IFS officers in relation to the
implementation of developmental work (including 20 point
programme) funded by the District Administration for being
considered by the superior departmental officers at the time of
writing of ACRs.
nd
20. It will be relevant to refer to the O.M. dated 2 September
2004 notified by the Department of Personnel and Training
(hereinafter referred to as, “DoPT”), which reads thus:
“ 2. Writing of ACRs of All India Services Officers
– instructions regarding.- The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in I.A. No.424 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of
1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of
India & Others) had considered the issue of the
competent authority to write the confidential report
of Forest Department Officers (implementation of the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court). The
Ministry of Environment & Forests issued
instructions vide letter No. 22019/1/2001-IFS-I
dated 8th November, 2001 (Copy enclosed).
2.1 This Department filed I.A.No. 477/2003 for
modification or clarification of the above order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
directed that the matter be heard by the Central
Empowered Committee (CEC), constituted by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The CEC has agreed
with the views of Department of Personnel & Training
(DOP&T) that the Hon’ble Court’s order dated
22.09.2000 was issued in a particular context and
should not be generalized to cover other Services. It
has also agreed with the view of the DOP&T that if
the Forest Officer is working in the Secretariat or
15
other Departments where his immediate supervising
officer is a non-forest officer, his C.R should be
written by such an officer [para 8(x)].
2.2 The relevant recommendation of the CEC is
reproduced below:-
“In the light of the above, the Committee is
of the considered view that this Hon’ble
Court’s order dated 22.09.2000 requires
no modification. The Hon’ble Court’s order
has set right the anomaly that existed in
the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding
CRs of the Forest Officers. The Hon’ble
Court’s order is not inconsistent with the
amended CR Rules. It may be clarified that
the order of 22.09.2000 of this Hon’ble
Court is applicable only for reporting,
reviewing or accepting the confidential
reports of the Forest Officers working
within the Forest Department and is not
applicable for Forest Officers working
outside the Department or for other
Services”.(para 10).
2.3 In pursuance of the recommendations of CEC,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its order of 26th
April, 2004 in I.A.No. 1035, (Report of the Central
Empowered Committee in I.A. No. 776) in WP (Civil)
No. 202 of 1995 , agreed with the same and has
dismissed I.A.No. 424 and disposed of I.A.No. 1035.
A copy of the Recommendation of the CEC can be
made available on request.
2.4 It is therefore, clarified that the order passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.9.2000 is applicable to
Forest Officers working within the Forest Department
and is not applicable to Forest Officers working
outside the Department. It is also clarified that if the
Forest Officer is working in the Secretariat or other
Department where his immediate superior officer is a
non-Forest officer, his CR should be written by that
superior officer. This order of the Hon’ble Apex Court
is also not applicable to other Services viz., the Indian
Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service.”
16
21. It can thus be seen that the DoPT had clarified that the
nd
order passed by this Court in the present proceedings on 22
September 2000 ( Santosh Bharti case ) was applicable to
Forest Officers working within the Forest Department and was
not applicable to Forest Officers working outside the
Department. It further clarified that if the Forest Officer was
working in the Secretariat or other Department where his
immediate superior officer was a non-Forest Officer, his CR
should be written by that officer superior to him. It further
provided that the order of this Court was not applicable to
other Services viz., IAS and Indian Police Service (hereinafter
referred to as, “IPS”).
(iii) Legal Precedents
(a) State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS,
Inspector General of Police and Another
22. It will also be relevant to refer to some judgments and
orders of this Court.
23. An issue with regard to whether the provision
empowering the Home Secretary as the reporting authority for
the purpose of writing a Confidential Report (hereinafter
referred to as “CR”) in respect of the Inspector General of Police
17
arose for consideration before this Court in the case of P.C.
Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police (supra). This
Court had an occasion to consider clauses ‘e’, ‘f’ and ‘a’ of Rule
2 of the 1970 Rules. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 8
and 11 of the said judgment, which read thus:
“ 8. Now the question is whether the State
Government can specifically empower any authority
to be the reporting authority of the Inspector General
of Police under the second part of clause ( e ). Apart
from any legal provision, it is just and proper that
a reporting authority must be a person to whom
the member of the Service is answerable for his
performances. In other words, the reporting
authority should be a person higher in rank than
the member of the Service. Indeed, that is
apparent from the first part of clause ( e ). It is true
that under the second part of clause ( e ), there is
no indication as to the status and position of the
authority who may be specifically empowered by
the Government as the reporting authority, but
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. If that be not
so, there will be an apparent conflict between the
first part and second part of clause ( e ). We are,
therefore, of the view that the State Government
can specifically empower only such authority as
the reporting authority as is superior in rank to
the Inspector General of Police .
………………
11. In view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act read
with Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, the
Inspector General of Police, Haryana, is the head of
the Police Department. The immediate authority
18
superior to the Inspector General of Police is the
Minister-in-Charge of the Police Department. The
only authority who could be specifically empowered
as the reporting authority in regard to the Inspector
General of Police under clause ( e ) of Rule 2 of the
Rules is the Minister-in-Charge and the Chief
Minister, being superior to the Minister-in-Charge,
may be the reviewing authority under clause ( f ) of
Rule 2. In acting as the reporting authority the
Minister-in-Charge may be assisted by the Home
Secretary, but the confidential report relating to the
performances of the Inspector General of Police has
to be written by the Minister-in-Charge. The
Minister-in-Charge of the Police Department is
supposed to be aware of the performances of the
Inspector General of Police. As the Chief Minister is
the reviewing authority, he will also act as the
accepting authority on the basis of the principle
as laid down under Rule 6-B of the Rules
providing that where the accepting authority
writes or reviews the confidential report of any
member of the Service, it shall not be further
necessary to review or accept any such report. In
other words, the Chief Minister will act both as
the reviewing authority and the accepting
authority .
[Emphasis supplied]
24. It can thus be seen that this Court observed that apart
from any legal provision, it was just and proper that the
“reporting authority” must be a person to whom the member
of the Service was answerable for his performance. This Court
observed that the “reporting authority” should be a person
higher in rank than the member of the Service. This Court held
that from the point of view of propriety and reasonableness
19
and in light of the manifest intention underlying the rule, the
“reporting authority” must be an individual holding a rank
superior to that of the Service member concerned. This Court
particularly observed that the State Government could
empower only such authority as the “reporting authority”
which was superior in rank to the Inspector General of Police
(hereinafter referred to as, “IGP”). This Court further observed
that in view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act, 1861 read
with Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the IGP,
Haryana, was the head of the Police Department. It observed
that the immediate authority superior to IGP was the Minister-
in-Charge of the Police Department. It observed that the only
authority who could be specifically empowered as the
“reporting authority” in regard to the IGP under clause ( e ) of
Rule 2 of the said Rules was the Minister-in-Charge and the
Chief Minister, being superior to the Minister-in-Charge, may
be the “reviewing authority” under clause ( f ) of Rule 2 of the
said Rules. It further observed that in acting as the “reporting
authority” the Minister-in-Charge may be assisted by the
Home Secretary, but the confidential report relating to the
performance of the IGP has to be written by the Minister-in-
20
Charge. It further observed that the Chief Minister would act
as the “reviewing authority” as well as the “accepting
authority” on the basis of the principle as laid down under
Rule 6-B of the said Rules providing that where the “accepting
authority” writes or reviews the C.Rs. of any member of the
Service, it shall not be further necessary to review or accept
any such report.
(b) Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 748
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN RE: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORTS OF THE
OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN FOREST SERVICE
I.A. NO.172422 OF 2024
[Applications for Impleadment]
WITH
I.A. NO.172425 OF 2024
[Applications for Direction]
WITH
I.A. NO. 172427 OF 2024
[Application for Exemption from filing Official
Translation]
WITH
I.A. NO. 172429 OF 2024
[Application for appearing as Petitioner-in-Person]
WITH
I.A. NO. 179359 OF 2024
[Application for Ex-Party and Interim Stay]
WITH
I.A. NO. 290215 OF 2024
[Application for Impleadment]
WITH
I.A. NO. 290217 OF 2024
[Application for Direction]
WITH
I.A. NO. 105862 OF 2025
[Applications for Impleadment]
Signature Not Verified
WITH
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.05.21
12:30:22 IST
Reason:
I.A. NO. 105864 OF 2025
[Application for Direction]
1
WITH
I.A. NO. 105865 OF 2025
[Application for Exemption from filing Official
Translation]
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
IN THE MATTER OF:
GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL …APPLICANT
UNNAMATLA PRAKASHAM …APPLICANT
INDIAN FOREST SERVICE ASSOCIATION
(STATE UNIT) …APPLICANT
INDEX
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 3
II. SUBMISSIONS ......................................................................... 4
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ................................................. 7
(i) Statutory Provisions ............................................................ 7
(ii) Internal Communications ............................................... 10
(iii) Legal Precedents ............................................................. 17
(a) State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General
of Police and Another ........................................................... 17
(b) Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh ................ 21
(iv) Order of this Court in I.A. No.776 of 2002 in the present
proceedings ............................................................................. 26
(v) Recent judgment of this Court in State of Assam and
Others v. Binod Kumar and Others .......................................... 30
th
(vi) Impugned G.O. dated 29 June 2024 .............................. 32
IV. DIRECTIONS ...................................................................... 37
2
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The present batch of applications pertains to an issue as
to whether the officers in the Indian Administrative Service
(hereinafter referred to as, “IAS”) would be a “reporting
authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” of
the officers working in the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter
referred to as, “IFS”).
2. The present applications basically challenge the
th
Government Order dated 29 June 2024 (hereinafter referred
to as the, “said G.O.”) notified by the Government of Madhya
Pradesh with regard to writing Performance Appraisal Report
(hereinafter referred to as, “PAR”) of the officers belonging to
the IFS. The relevant part of the said G.O. reads thus:
“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
3
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.”
3. The applicants have a grievance with regards to the
“reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting
authority” as prescribed in the said G.O., insofar as certain
posts in the IFS are concerned. The applicants also have a
grievance with regard to the aforementioned paragraphs 2 and
3 of the said G.O.
II. SUBMISSIONS
4. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus
curiae and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. Shri Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae submits that
the said G.O issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh is
directly in violation of the judgments delivered by this Court in
the cases of State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS,
4
1
Inspector General of Police and Another , Santosh Bharti
2
v. State of Madhya Pradesh , and the order passed by this
th
Court in the present proceedings dated 19 April 2004. The
learned amicus curiae therefore submits that the said G.O. is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra , Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh submits
that as per the Order of Precedence of the Government of
rd
Madhya Pradesh dated 23 December 2011, the Additional
Chief Secretary (hereinafter referred to as, “ACS”) and the
Principal Secretary (hereinafter referred to as, “PS”) hold ranks
superior to that of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(hereinafter referred to as, “PCCF”). He further submits that in
accordance with the provisions as contained in clauses (2) and
(3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Madhya Pradesh has framed the Madhya Pradesh Government
Business (Allocation) Rules. He submits that under the said
Rules, each Secretariat Department is required to have a
Secretary to the Government (ACS/PS). It is submitted that for
1
(1987) 2 SCC 602
2
(2007) 15 SCC 273
5
the Forest Department, ACS/PS is the official administrative
head of the IFS.
7. The learned Solicitor General submits that the Forest
Officers and particularly the Divisional Forest Officer
(hereinafter referred to as, “DFO”) who is the Head of the
Division, discharges diverse responsibilities. It is submitted
that the DFO is also responsible for various duties like
conservation of forests, implementation of government
schemes, enforcement of forest laws, forest fire management,
legal matters, financial administration, and interdepartmental
coordination, amongst others. He submits that therefore, it is
necessary that the evaluation of the performance of DFOs
should be accepted by the Secretary of the Forest Department
who is normally an ACS/PS. He submits that similarly even
insofar as the PAR of the Chief Conservators of Forests
(hereinafter referred to as, “CCFs”) is concerned, the
“accepting authority” should be only ACS or PS. He further
submits that assigning PCCF or the Head of Forests as
“reviewing authority” or “accepting authority” for the
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (hereinafter
referred to as, “APCCF”) working in vertical roles at the
6
headquarters is not consistent with the revised appraisal
rules. He submits that the performance must be evaluated by
those who have continuing engagement with the officer’s work.
8.
Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General fairly
submits that ignoring the role of the ACS/PS in the PAR
channel of IFS officers would not only be contrary to legislative
intent but also inconsistent with principles of governance,
accountability and equity in public administration that
demand accountability through real supervision. He fairly
submits that in order to alleviate the fear in the minds of the
IFS officers, the State of Madhya Pradesh has agreed that it
will not insist on marking by the ACS/PS, instead, only
comments of the reviewing officers would be called for.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(i) Statutory Provisions
9. For examining the controversy, it will be relevant to refer
to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All-India Services Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as, “AIS Act”), which reads thus:
“ 3. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of
service .—(1) The Central Government may, after
consultation with the Governments of the States
concerned including the State of Jammu and
Kashmir and by notification in the Official Gazette,
make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the
7
conditions of service of persons appointed, to an all-
India Service.”
10. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the AIS Act, the Central Government, after
consultation with the Governments of the States concerned,
has made the All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules,
1970 (hereinafter referred to as, “1970 Rules”).
11. Rule 2 of the 1970 Rules provides various definitions. It
will be relevant to refer to the following definitions provided in
the 1970 Rules:
“ 2. Definitions .—In these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires:—
(a) ‘ accepting authority ’ means the authority who
was, during the period for which the confidential
report is written, immediately superior to the
reviewing authority and such other authority as may
be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government”;
………..
(e) ‘ reporting authority ’ means the authority who
was, during the period for which the confidential
report is written, immediately superior to the
member of the Service and such other authority as
may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;
(f) ‘ reviewing authority ’ means the authority who
was, during the period for which the confidential
report is written, immediately superior to the
reporting authority and such other authority as may
be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;”
8
12. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the AIS Act, the Central Government, after
consultation with the Governments of the States concerned,
th
by a notification dated 8 December 1987, has made the All-
India Services (Confidential Rolls) Second Amendment Rules,
1970, by which the definitions of “accepting authority”,
“reporting authority” and “reviewing authority” were amended,
which read thus:
“(a) ‘ accepting authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
reviewing authority as may be specifically empowered
in this behalf by the Government”;
………..
(e) ‘ reporting authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
member of the Service reported upon as may be
specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;
(f) ‘ reviewing authority ’ means authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
reporting authority as may be specifically empowered
in this behalf by the Government;”
13. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the AIS Act, the Central Government, after
consultation with the Governments of the States concerned,
made the All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report)
9
Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, “2007 Rules”). The
definitions of “accepting authority”, “reporting authority” and
“reviewing authority” as provided in the 2007 Rules, read thus:
accepting authority
“(a) ‘ ’ means the authority which
supervises the performance of the reviewing
authority as may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government”;
………..
(j) ‘ reporting authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
member of the Service reported upon as may be
specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;
(k) ‘ reviewing authority ’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the
reporting authority as may be specifically empowered
in this behalf by the Government;”
(ii) Internal Communications
14. For deciding the issue in question, it will also be
necessary to refer to certain clarifications and Office
Memorandum (hereinafter referred to as, “O.M.”) issued by the
Union of India.
th
15. Clause 4 of the clarification dated 28 December 1990
reads thus:
“ 4. Reporting Authority should be in a higher
grade of pay than the officers reported upon and
the Reviewing Authority should be in a higher
grade than the Reporting Authority.- I am directed
10
to refer to Rule 2(e) of the AIS (CR) Rules, 1970,
wherein the reporting authority has been defined as
the authority or authorities supervising the
performance of the member of the Service reported
upon as may be specifically empowered in this behalf
by the Government.
2. It appears that some States have kept in view the
seniority and pay scale of the reporting officer vis-à-
vis the Member of the Service reported upon while
assigning reporting authorities whereas others have
not. Instances have come to the notice of this
Department wherein ACRs of the members of All
India Service have been initiated by officers belonging
to the same batch or drawing pay in the same scale
as that of the officer reported upon.
3. It is suggested to the State Govts. that while
assigning reporting/reviewing authorities efforts may
be made to ensure that a member of the Service or
any other officer does not initiate the C.R. of another
member of the Service in the same grade of pay. It is
also desirable that the reviewing authority is in a
higher grade than the reporting authority within the
limits of administrative convenience.”
16. It can thus be seen that seniority and pay-scales of the
reporting officer vis-à-vis the Member of the Service reported
upon is required to be taken into consideration while assigning
reporting authorities. It further states that various instances
have come to notice wherein Annual Confidential Reports
(hereinafter referred to as, “ACRs”) of the Members of All India
Service have been initiated by officers belonging to the same
batch or drawing pay in the same scale as that of the officer
reported upon. It has therefore been suggested to the State
11
Governments that while assigning reporting/reviewing
authorities, efforts should be made to ensure that a Member
of the Service or any other officer does not initiate the
Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as, “C.R.”) of
another Member of the Service in the same grade or pay. It
further provides that it is desirable that the reviewing
authority is in a higher grade than the reporting authority
within the limits of administrative convenience.
17. It will also be relevant to refer to a letter of the Ministry
of Environment & Forest (hereinafter referred to as, “MoEF”)
th
dated 8 November 2001, which reads thus:
“(V) WRITING OF REPORTS OF MEMBERS OF THE
INDIAN FOREST SERVICE
1. Writing of Reports of members of the Indian
Forest Service.- Attention of the State Government
is invited to this Ministry’s letter No. 14/20/2000-SU
dated 28th September, 2000 vide which a copy of
order dated 22/09/2000 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in I.A. No. 424 (Civil Writ Petition No.
202 of 1995) : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad had
been forwarded for implementation of various
directions given by the Apex Court.
2. One of the directions of the Apex Court was in
regard to writing of Annual Confidential report of the
members of the Indian Forest Service. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court had directed that upto the officers of
the rank of Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests the reporting authority has to be the
immediately superior officer within the Forest
Department. It is only in the case of Principal Chief
12
Conservator of Forest that the reporting authority
would be a person other than the one belonging to
the Service because there is no one superior to him
within the EFS. Therefore, in his case the reporting
authority would be a person to whom he reports and
who is superior to him in hierarchy.
3. Keeping in view the directions given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, all the State Governments are
advised to ensure that for writing the Annual
Confidential Reports of the IFS officers upto the rank
of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
the reporting authority should be their immediate
superior authorities in the Forest Department. As
regards reviewing/reporting authority in relation to
officers of the rank of Addl. Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, the concerned authority
would person who is familiar with their work and that
will be the person to whom addl. PCCF/PCCF reports
and who is superior to them in rank and hierarchy.
4. The State Government may, if necessary direct the
Collectors and Commissioners to record their
comments on a separate sheet about the
performance of the IFS officers in relation to
implementation of developmental work (including 20-
point programme) funded by the District
Administration for being considered by the superior
departmental officers at the time of writing of ACRs.
5. The State Governments are requested to ensure
that the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of writing of ACRs, as explained
above, are strictly followed.”
18. It can thus be seen that the said letter specifically noted
the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings
nd 3
titled dated 22 September 2000 , wherein this Court had
3
(2007) 15 SCC 273
13
directed that up to the rank of APCCF, the “reporting
authority” had to be an immediate superior officer within the
Forest Department. It further noted that this Court had also
directed that it was only in the case of PCCF that the “reporting
authority” would be a person other than the one belonging to
the Forest Service because there was no one superior to
him/her within the IFS. It noted that this Court further
directed that in that case, the “reporting authority” would be a
person to whom he reported and who was superior to him in
hierarchy.
19. The aforesaid communication of the MoEF directed all
the State Governments to ensure that for writing the ACRs of
the IFS officers up to the rank of APCCF, the “reporting
authority” should be their immediate superior authorities in
the Forest Department. It further directed that regarding the
reviewing/reporting authority in relation to officers of the rank
of APCCF and PCCF, the concerned authority would be a
person who was familiar with their work and that would be the
person to whom APCCF/PCCF reported and who was superior
to them in rank and hierarchy. It further directed that the
State Governments may, if necessary, direct the Collectors and
14
Commissioners to record their comments on a separate sheet
about the performance of the IFS officers in relation to the
implementation of developmental work (including 20 point
programme) funded by the District Administration for being
considered by the superior departmental officers at the time of
writing of ACRs.
nd
20. It will be relevant to refer to the O.M. dated 2 September
2004 notified by the Department of Personnel and Training
(hereinafter referred to as, “DoPT”), which reads thus:
“ 2. Writing of ACRs of All India Services Officers
– instructions regarding.- The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in I.A. No.424 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of
1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of
India & Others) had considered the issue of the
competent authority to write the confidential report
of Forest Department Officers (implementation of the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court). The
Ministry of Environment & Forests issued
instructions vide letter No. 22019/1/2001-IFS-I
dated 8th November, 2001 (Copy enclosed).
2.1 This Department filed I.A.No. 477/2003 for
modification or clarification of the above order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
directed that the matter be heard by the Central
Empowered Committee (CEC), constituted by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The CEC has agreed
with the views of Department of Personnel & Training
(DOP&T) that the Hon’ble Court’s order dated
22.09.2000 was issued in a particular context and
should not be generalized to cover other Services. It
has also agreed with the view of the DOP&T that if
the Forest Officer is working in the Secretariat or
15
other Departments where his immediate supervising
officer is a non-forest officer, his C.R should be
written by such an officer [para 8(x)].
2.2 The relevant recommendation of the CEC is
reproduced below:-
“In the light of the above, the Committee is
of the considered view that this Hon’ble
Court’s order dated 22.09.2000 requires
no modification. The Hon’ble Court’s order
has set right the anomaly that existed in
the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding
CRs of the Forest Officers. The Hon’ble
Court’s order is not inconsistent with the
amended CR Rules. It may be clarified that
the order of 22.09.2000 of this Hon’ble
Court is applicable only for reporting,
reviewing or accepting the confidential
reports of the Forest Officers working
within the Forest Department and is not
applicable for Forest Officers working
outside the Department or for other
Services”.(para 10).
2.3 In pursuance of the recommendations of CEC,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its order of 26th
April, 2004 in I.A.No. 1035, (Report of the Central
Empowered Committee in I.A. No. 776) in WP (Civil)
No. 202 of 1995 , agreed with the same and has
dismissed I.A.No. 424 and disposed of I.A.No. 1035.
A copy of the Recommendation of the CEC can be
made available on request.
2.4 It is therefore, clarified that the order passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.9.2000 is applicable to
Forest Officers working within the Forest Department
and is not applicable to Forest Officers working
outside the Department. It is also clarified that if the
Forest Officer is working in the Secretariat or other
Department where his immediate superior officer is a
non-Forest officer, his CR should be written by that
superior officer. This order of the Hon’ble Apex Court
is also not applicable to other Services viz., the Indian
Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service.”
16
21. It can thus be seen that the DoPT had clarified that the
nd
order passed by this Court in the present proceedings on 22
September 2000 ( Santosh Bharti case ) was applicable to
Forest Officers working within the Forest Department and was
not applicable to Forest Officers working outside the
Department. It further clarified that if the Forest Officer was
working in the Secretariat or other Department where his
immediate superior officer was a non-Forest Officer, his CR
should be written by that officer superior to him. It further
provided that the order of this Court was not applicable to
other Services viz., IAS and Indian Police Service (hereinafter
referred to as, “IPS”).
(iii) Legal Precedents
(a) State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS,
Inspector General of Police and Another
22. It will also be relevant to refer to some judgments and
orders of this Court.
23. An issue with regard to whether the provision
empowering the Home Secretary as the reporting authority for
the purpose of writing a Confidential Report (hereinafter
referred to as “CR”) in respect of the Inspector General of Police
17
arose for consideration before this Court in the case of P.C.
Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police (supra). This
Court had an occasion to consider clauses ‘e’, ‘f’ and ‘a’ of Rule
2 of the 1970 Rules. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 8
and 11 of the said judgment, which read thus:
“ 8. Now the question is whether the State
Government can specifically empower any authority
to be the reporting authority of the Inspector General
of Police under the second part of clause ( e ). Apart
from any legal provision, it is just and proper that
a reporting authority must be a person to whom
the member of the Service is answerable for his
performances. In other words, the reporting
authority should be a person higher in rank than
the member of the Service. Indeed, that is
apparent from the first part of clause ( e ). It is true
that under the second part of clause ( e ), there is
no indication as to the status and position of the
authority who may be specifically empowered by
the Government as the reporting authority, but
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. If that be not
so, there will be an apparent conflict between the
first part and second part of clause ( e ). We are,
therefore, of the view that the State Government
can specifically empower only such authority as
the reporting authority as is superior in rank to
the Inspector General of Police .
………………
11. In view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act read
with Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, the
Inspector General of Police, Haryana, is the head of
the Police Department. The immediate authority
18
superior to the Inspector General of Police is the
Minister-in-Charge of the Police Department. The
only authority who could be specifically empowered
as the reporting authority in regard to the Inspector
General of Police under clause ( e ) of Rule 2 of the
Rules is the Minister-in-Charge and the Chief
Minister, being superior to the Minister-in-Charge,
may be the reviewing authority under clause ( f ) of
Rule 2. In acting as the reporting authority the
Minister-in-Charge may be assisted by the Home
Secretary, but the confidential report relating to the
performances of the Inspector General of Police has
to be written by the Minister-in-Charge. The
Minister-in-Charge of the Police Department is
supposed to be aware of the performances of the
Inspector General of Police. As the Chief Minister is
the reviewing authority, he will also act as the
accepting authority on the basis of the principle
as laid down under Rule 6-B of the Rules
providing that where the accepting authority
writes or reviews the confidential report of any
member of the Service, it shall not be further
necessary to review or accept any such report. In
other words, the Chief Minister will act both as
the reviewing authority and the accepting
authority .
[Emphasis supplied]
24. It can thus be seen that this Court observed that apart
from any legal provision, it was just and proper that the
“reporting authority” must be a person to whom the member
of the Service was answerable for his performance. This Court
observed that the “reporting authority” should be a person
higher in rank than the member of the Service. This Court held
that from the point of view of propriety and reasonableness
19
and in light of the manifest intention underlying the rule, the
“reporting authority” must be an individual holding a rank
superior to that of the Service member concerned. This Court
particularly observed that the State Government could
empower only such authority as the “reporting authority”
which was superior in rank to the Inspector General of Police
(hereinafter referred to as, “IGP”). This Court further observed
that in view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act, 1861 read
with Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the IGP,
Haryana, was the head of the Police Department. It observed
that the immediate authority superior to IGP was the Minister-
in-Charge of the Police Department. It observed that the only
authority who could be specifically empowered as the
“reporting authority” in regard to the IGP under clause ( e ) of
Rule 2 of the said Rules was the Minister-in-Charge and the
Chief Minister, being superior to the Minister-in-Charge, may
be the “reviewing authority” under clause ( f ) of Rule 2 of the
said Rules. It further observed that in acting as the “reporting
authority” the Minister-in-Charge may be assisted by the
Home Secretary, but the confidential report relating to the
performance of the IGP has to be written by the Minister-in-
20
Charge. It further observed that the Chief Minister would act
as the “reviewing authority” as well as the “accepting
authority” on the basis of the principle as laid down under
Rule 6-B of the said Rules providing that where the “accepting
authority” writes or reviews the C.Rs. of any member of the
Service, it shall not be further necessary to review or accept
any such report.
(b) Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh
| 25. It will further be relevant to note that an application being | ||
|---|---|---|
| I.A. No.424 of 1998 came to be filed before this Court in the | ||
| present proceedings with regard to the question as to who is | ||
| the authority competent to write the C.R. with regard to an | ||
| officer belonging to the Forest Department. It will be relevant | ||
| to refer to the following observations of this Court in the | ||
| aforementioned I.A. vide order dated 22nd September 2000 | ||
| (Santosh Bharti case): | ||
| “17. The question which arises for consideration is | ||
| as to who is the authority competent to write a | ||
| confidential report with regard to an officer belonging | ||
| to the Forest Department. | ||
| 18. The Indian Forest Service is one of the All-India | ||
| Services. The officers selected on the basis of an all- | ||
| India competitive examination, like the officers | ||
| belonging to the Indian Administrative Service, are |
21
then deployed in different States. That becomes the
cadre for them.
19. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, persons
belonging to the Indian Forest Service are also
deployed, just as they are deployed to other States.
In the Forest Department in the State, the lowest
rung for a direct recruit belonging to the Indian
Forest Service is the post of Assistant Conservator of
Forests. Below the Assistant Conservator of Forests
are three levels starting with that of a Guard,
Forester and Range Forest Officer. These three lowest
rungs are manned by officers belonging to the State
Forest Service. Recruitment to the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forests is made partly by promotion
from an officer belonging to the State Forest
Department (being a Range Forest Officer) and partly,
as already noticed, by direct recruitment to the
Indian Forest Service.
20. The hierarchy in the Indian Forest Service is that
above the Assistant Conservator of Forests is the
Divisional Forest Officer, thereafter on promotion a
person becomes Conservator of Forests, then Chief
Conservator of Forests followed by Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and at the
pinnacle of the pyramid is the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests.
21. The practice which has been adopted so far in the
State of Madhya Pradesh and possibly in some other
States also, is that the confidential reports of the
officers belonging to the Forest Department holding
any of the posts between that of a Guard and the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is not written
by the superiors within the same service but is
written by the officers belonging to the office of the
District Collector and superior officers on the civil
side.
22. For writing of the confidential reports, the
Central Government has, under Section 3 of the All
India Services Act, 1951, framed All India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. According to Rule
2( e ), the “reporting authority” is defined as follows:
22
“2. ( e ) ‘reporting authority’ means the
authority who was, during the period for
which the confidential report is written,
immediately superior to the member of the
service and such other authority as may
be specifically empowered in this behalf by
the Government;”
23. The “reviewing authority” is defined in Rule 2( f )
as follows:
“2. ( f ) ‘reviewing authority’ means the
authority who was, during the period for
which the confidential report is written,
immediately superior to the reporting
authority and such other authority as may
be specifically empowered in this behalf by
the Government;”
24. It seems that Rule 2( e ) had been interpreted by
the State to mean that the confidential report of an
officer could be written by a person who is superior
to him and also by such other officer who may be
specified in this behalf. In view of the latter portion
of the said Rule 2( e ), the State Government has
authorised officers of service other than of the Forest
Department to write the confidential reports. In this
manner, in effect, the administrative control of
officers belonging to the Forest Department is not
within the Department itself.
25. The aforesaid Rule 2( e ) came up for consideration
before this Court in State of Haryana v. P.C.
Wadhwa [(1987) 2 SCC 602 : (1987) 3 ATC 690 :
(1987) 2 SCR 1030] . While interpreting the said Rule
2( e ), this Court at p. 1035 observed as follows: (SCC
pp. 606-07, para 5)
“ 5 . In this connection, it may be pointed
out that it is not disputed that the
conjunction ‘and’ occurring in clauses ( e ),
( f ) and ( a ) should be read as ‘or’. Under
clause ( e ), the ‘reporting authority’ may be
either immediately superior to the member
of the service or such other authority as
23
may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government. The expression
‘immediately superior’ obviously indicates
that the reporting authority should be the
immediate superior officer in the same
service to which the member of the service
belongs. The position is the same as in the
cases of ‘reviewing authority’ and
‘accepting authority’. So, under the first
part of clause ( e ), the reporting authority
of the respondent could be a person who
is immediately superior to him in the
police service.”
26. It appears to us, and which is logical, that up
to the officer of the rank of Additional Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests the reporting
authority has to be the immediately superior
officer within the Forest Department. For
example, for the Assistant Conservator of Forests,
the reporting authority can only be the Divisional
Forest Officer and for him the reporting authority
would be the Conservator of Forests for whom the
reporting authority has to be the Chief
Conservator of Forests and his reporting
authority would be Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and lastly his reporting
authority would be the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests. Likewise the reviewing
authority would also be the person within the
same Department. It is only in case of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the
reporting authority will be a person other than
the one belonging to the service because there is
no one superior to the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests within the service. As far
as he is concerned, the reporting authority would
be a person who is familiar with the work of
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and that
will be the person to whom he reports and who is
superior to him in rank and hierarchy.
24
27. We, therefore, direct the State of Madhya
Pradesh to pass appropriate orders enumerating the
reporting authorities in the manner indicated
hereinabove.
28. The Union of India is directed to bring to the
notice of the other States the ratio of this decision as
well as the decision in P.C. Wadhwa case [(1987) 2
SCC 602 : (1987) 3 ATC 690 : (1987) 2 SCR 1030] for
issuing suitable orders wherever necessary.”
[Emphasis supplied]
26. It can thus be seen from the aforesaid observations that
this Court in detail had considered the hierarchy in IFS. This
Court noted the practice in the State of Madhya Pradesh that
the C.Rs. of the officers belonging to the Forest Department
holding any of the posts between that of a Guard and the PCCF
were not written by the superiors within the same service but
were written by the officers belonging to the office of the
District Collector and superior officers on the civil side. After
considering the definitions of “reporting authority” and
“reviewing authority” as contained in the 1970 Rules and the
judgment of this Court in the case of P.C. Wadhwa, IPS,
Inspector General of Police (supra), this Court reiterated
that up to the officer of the rank of APCCF, the “reporting
authority” has to be the immediately superior officer within the
Forest Department. This Court has given the entire illustration
25
in paragraph 26 as to who would be the “reporting authority”
and the “reviewing authority” in respect of an officer.
(iv) Order of this Court in I.A. No.776 of 2002 in the
present proceedings
| 27. It is further relevant to note that the State of Madhya | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pradesh, in the present proceedings, had also filed an | ||
| application being I.A. No.776 of 2002 seeking | ||
| modification/clarification of the order of this Court dated 22nd | ||
| September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case). It will be relevant to | ||
| refer to the prayers made in the said I.A., which read thus: | ||
| “(i) Modify/clarify the order dated 22.09.2000 that | ||
| the Reporting Authority and Reviewing Authority up | ||
| to the rank of Additional Chief Conservator of Forests | ||
| should be immediately superior officer as per | ||
| amended provisions of Rule 2 (a), 2 (e) and 2(f) All | ||
| India Service (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. |
| (ii) The amended provisions of the All-India Services | ||
| (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. In Section 2 (e), 2(f) | ||
| and 2(a) be given full effect to in its letter and spirit.” | ||
| 28. This Court, vide order dated 1st August 2003 passed in | ||
| the present proceedings, directed the Central Empowered | ||
| Committee (hereinafter referred to as, “CEC”) to examine the | ||
| issue and submit a report. |
26
| 29. The CEC, accordingly, submitted its report on 22nd | ||
|---|---|---|
| January 2004. It will be relevant to refer to the following | ||
| extract of the said report: | ||
| “(i) In all the States and Union Territories except the | ||
| State of Madhya Pradesh, the CR's of the Assistant | ||
| Conservator of Forests, the Divisional Forest Officer | ||
| and the Conservator of Forests working in the Forest | ||
| Department are written by their immediate superiors | ||
| in the Forest Department i.e. the Divisional Forest | ||
| Officer, the Conservator of Forests and the Chief | ||
| Conservator of Forests respectively. In the State of | ||
| Madhya Pradesh the CR's of these Forest Officers | ||
| were being written by their counterparts in the | ||
| Revenue Department i.e. Assistant Collector, District | ||
| Collector and Divisional Commissioner, | ||
| (ii) the primary responsibility of the forest officers | ||
| working in the field is forest protection, wildlife | ||
| management, implementation of FC Act, Indian | ||
| Forest Act, Wildlife (Protection) Act, preparation and | ||
| Implementation of Working Plans and other forestry | ||
| activities. These officers work under the direct | ||
| supervision and administrative control of their | ||
| superior forest officers. It is, therefore, logical that | ||
| their CR's are written by their superior officers in the | ||
| Forest Department and not by their counterparts in | ||
| the Revenue Department; | ||
| (iii) though the forest officers may be involved in | ||
| implementation of various welfare and development | ||
| schemes of the State Government, this should not | ||
| normally become their primary responsibility; | ||
| (iv) in view of above, the system of writing of CR's of | ||
| the Forest Officers working in the field by their | ||
| counterparts in the Revenue Department may not be | ||
| appropriate. If required, a report about the | ||
| performance of the Forest Officer (s) in | ||
| implementation of the welfare schemes may be sent | ||
| by the Assistant Collector, Collector or the Divisional | ||
| Commissioner to the designated Reporting Officer (s), |
27
which could be taken into consideration by the
Reporting Officer (s) while writing the CR(s);
(v) the CR should normally be written by the officer
of higher rank and pay scale. In exceptional cases it
may be allowed to be written by the officer in the
same pay scale provided he is senior. It should never
be allowed to be written by an officer of a lower rank
or who is in a lower pay scale. There are many
Divisional Forest Officers who are in a higher pay
scale and/or of higher seniority vis-à-vis the District
Collectors;
(vi) Rule 2(e), 2(f) and 2(a) of the All India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 as amended on
8.12.1987 deal with the "reporting authority",
"reviewing authority" and "accepting authority".
respectively. As per the amended rules, the reviewing
authority and the accepting authority shall be the
authority supervising the performance of the
reporting authority and reviewing authority,
respectively. Since the Divisional Commissioner is
the supervising authority for the District Collectors
and Revenue Secretary is the supervising authority
for the Divisional Commissioner, if a District
Collector is designated as the reporting authority for
the DFO, the Divisional Commissioner and the
Revenue Secretary will be the Reviewing Officer and
Accepting Officer, respectively. Under these
circumstances none of the officers working in the
Forest Department would be involved at any level in
assessing the performance of the Divisional Forest
Officer;
(vii) in view of above the practice of designating the
District Collector as the reporting authority and the
Conservator of Forests as the reviewing authority for
writing the CR of the DFO was not in consonance
with the amended CR rules. Similar situation existed
for other field officers of the Forest Department;
(viii) the amendments made in the All India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 on 8.12.1987
resulted in nullifying the Hon'ble Court's judgment
dated 16.4.1987 delivered in State of Haryana vs.
28
Shri P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police &
Anr., 1987 (2) SCR 1030.. The amendment to the said
rules was not made to cure any defect in pursuant to
any order of this Hon'ble Court's. The amended rules
permit the Government to designate an officer in a
lower pay scale or rank to write the CR of another
officer in higher pay scale or rank from the same
service or another service, which is not appropriate.
Although there may be situations in which the
reporting officer, reviewing officer or the accepting
officer are from different services or departments, it
is necessary that the reporting officer should be in a
higher pay scale than the officer reported upon.
Similarly the reviewing officer and the accepting
officer should normally be in a higher-pay scale and
rank and in no case in a lower pay scale or rank than
the reporting officer and the reviewing officer,
(ix) the amended rules could have been brought to
the notice of this Hon'ble Court by the applicant
during the hearing which was not done. In any case
the Hon'ble Court's order is not contrary to or
inconsistent with the amended rules;
(x) the Committee agrees with the views of the DOPT
that the Hon'ble Court's order dated 22.9.2000 was
issued in a particular context and should not be
generalised to cover other services. Similarly, it also
agrees with the contention of the DOPT that if the
Forest Officer is working in the Secretariat or other
departments where his immediate supervising officer
is a non-forest officer, his CR should be written by
such an officer;”
| 30. After considering the aforesaid report of the CEC, this | ||
|---|---|---|
| Court passed an order in the present proceedings on 19th April | ||
| 2004, extract of which reads thus: | ||
| “Despite the order of this Court the State of Madhya | ||
| Pradesh has not filed its response. We are in | ||
| agreement with the recommendations of the CEC. IA |
29
| No.776 in IA No.424 is accordingly dismissed. It | ||
|---|---|---|
| appears that several States are not following the | ||
| recommendations of the CEC and the Order dated | ||
| 22.9.2000. We, therefore direct that since the matter | ||
| has already been decided all the States including the | ||
| State of Chhattisgarh shall abide by the order dated | ||
| 22.9.2000. I.A.No.1035 is disposed of” | ||
| 31. It can thus be seen that this Court has reiterated that all | ||
| the States shall abide by the order passed in the present | ||
| proceedings by a 3-Judges Bench of this Court dated 22nd | ||
| September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case). |
(v) Recent judgment of this Court in State of Assam
and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others
| 32. Recently, this Court in the case of State of Assam and | ||
|---|---|---|
| Others v. Binod Kumar and Others4 had an occasion to | ||
| consider a similar controversy with regard to who shall be the | ||
| “reporting authority” or recording of the Annual Performance | ||
| Appraisal Report (hereinafter referred to as, “APAR”) of the | ||
| officers belonging to the IPS. This Court also had an occasion | ||
| to consider the 1970 Rules as amended in 1987 and also the | ||
| 2007 Rules. It will be relevant to refer to the following | ||
| paragraphs of the said judgment: | ||
| “21. The definition of “reporting authority” in the | ||
| 1970 Rules, post 1987, and in the 2007 Rules, did |
4
(2024) 3 SCC 611
30
away with the mandate of having the “immediate
superior” of the officer reported upon undertaking
that exercise but it still requires the “reporting
authority” to be someone who supervises the
performance of the said officer. Ordinarily, such
supervision would be by an officer from within the
same department, who is higher in rank than the
officer reported upon. The Government was, no
doubt, given discretion to empower any of the
authorities who supervise the performance of the
officer reported upon to assume such role. This
discretion, however, cannot be construed to mean
that someone from outside the department can be
given such power, in the light of the “reviewing
authority” being defined as someone who supervises
the performance of such “reporting authority”. This
clearly implies that both authorities must belong to
the same service or department. In effect, Rule 63( iii )
of the Manual does not fit in with the scheme
obtaining under the 1970 Rules and the 2007 Rules.
30. In this regard, we may also note that,
in SBI v. Kashinath Kher [ SBI v. Kashinath Kher ,
(1996) 8 SCC 762 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1117] , this Court
held that officers reporting upon performance must
show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment,
without any prejudices whatsoever, and the highest
sense of responsibility so as to inculcate devotion to
duty, honesty and integrity. It was further observed
that as officers may get demoralised by negative
ACRs, which would be deleterious to the efficacy and
efficiency of public service, such ACRs should be
written by a superior officer of high rank. Earlier,
in State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa [ State of
Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa , (1987) 2 SCC 602] , this
Court considered whether the State Government
could empower any authority to be the “reporting
authority” of the Inspector General of Police under
Rule 2( e ) of the 1970 Rules. It was observed that,
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
31
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.”
33. This Court in the aforesaid judgment recorded that
though the Government had been given discretion to empower
any of the authorities who supervise the performance of the
officer reported upon to assume such role, such a discretion
could not be construed to mean that someone from outside the
department could be given such power, in the light of the
“reviewing authority” being defined as someone who
supervises the performance of such “reporting authority”. It
clearly implied that both authorities must belong to the same
service or department. This Court reiterated the position as
held by this Court in the case of P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector
General of Police (supra).
th
(vi) Impugned G.O. dated 29 June 2024
34. It appears that, while other States were adhering to the
practice wherein the “reporting authority” and the “reviewing
authority” belonged to the same service, with the “reporting
authority” being immediately superior to the officer being
reported upon, and the “reviewing authority” being the
32
authority supervising the performance of the “reporting
authority”, the State of Madhya Pradesh was not following this
established practice. The practice of ACRs of the IFS officers
being recorded by the officers from the IAS i.e., the District
Collectors and superior officers was followed in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. This practice was specifically challenged in
the present proceedings by way of an application and it was
found that the said practice as followed by the State of Madhya
Pradesh was not correct. This Court specifically in its order
nd
dated 22 September 2000 observed that insofar as Assistant
Conservator of Forests are concerned, the “reporting
authority” could only be the DFO and for DFO, the “reporting
authority” would be the Conservator of Forests. This Court
further observed that for the Conservator of Forests, the
“reporting authority” has to be the CCFs and for CCFs, the
“reporting authority” would be APCCF and for APCCF, the
“reporting authority” would be the PCCF. This Court observed
that up to the APCCF, the “reporting authority” and the
“reviewing authority” would be the person within the same
department. This Court observed that it was only in the case
of PCCF that the “reporting authority” would be a person other
33
than the one belonging to the service because there was no
one superior to the PCCF within the service. This Court
observed that in such a case, the “reporting authority” would
be a person who was familiar with the work of PCCF and that
would be the person to whom he reported and who was
superior to him in rank and hierarchy.
35. It can further be seen that in view of the order passed by
nd
this Court in the present proceedings dated 22 September
2000, MoEF issued specific directions to the various State
Governments.
36. It is to be noted that the State of Madhya Pradesh had
also filed an application being I.A. No.776 of 2002 in the
present proceedings for modification of the aforesaid
directions of this Court. This Court directed the CEC to submit
nd
its report. The CEC accordingly submitted its report on 22
th
April 2004. This Court, vide order dated 19 April 2004,
expressed its agreement with the said report of the CEC and
recorded that several States including the State of Madhya
Pradesh were not following the recommendations made by the
CEC in its report and the directions of this Court issued vide
nd
order dated 22 September 2000 in the present proceedings.
34
nd
This Court therefore reiterated its said order dated 22
September 2000 and directed all the State Governments to
follow the same.
37.
The legal position as approved by this Court in two
separate orders of this Court and as rightly understood by the
th
MoEF as could be seen from its letter dated 8 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. 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. 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
35
required to be considered by a superior departmental officer of
the IFS.
38. It is further to be noted that even the DoPT has also
nd
issued an O.M. dated 2 September 2004 informing all the
States about the order passed by this Court in the present
nd
proceedings dated 22 September 2000 ( Santosh Bharti
case ) and the instructions issued by MoEF vide its letter dated
th
8 November 2001. However, the DoPT clarified that the said
nd
order passed by this Court on 22 September 2000 would not
be applicable to the forest officers who are working in a
separate department where his immediate superior officer is a
non-forest officer.
th
39. We are of the considered view that the G.O. dated 29
June 2024 is totally in violation of the specific directions
nd
issued by this Court vide its orders dated 22 September 2000
th
in the present proceedings ( Santosh Bharti case ) and 19
April 2024. Perusal of the table annexed at Annexure-8 with
the compilation of the learned amicus curiae would reveal that
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
36
impugned G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature inasmuch as
the said G.O. which is in violation of the aforesaid orders of
nd th
this Court dated 22 September 2000 and 19 April 2024 has
been issued without even seeking clarification/modification of
this Court. We could have very well proceeded to initiate
contempt proceedings against the officers responsible for
issuance of such G.O. However, we refrain ourselves from
doing so. The said G.O. being in violation of the directions of
this Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.
| 40. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the present | |
|---|---|
| applications. | |
| 41. In the result, we pass the following order: | |
| (i) The present applications are allowed; | |
| (ii) 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; | |
| (iii) The State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to reframe the | |
| rules by strictly adhering to the directions issued by |
37
nd
this Court vide order dated 22 September 2000 in
the present proceedings ( Santosh Bharti case ) which
th
has been clarified by the MoEF in its letter dated 8
November 2001 and also clarified by the DoPT vide its
nd
letter dated 2 September 2004; and
(iv) The same shall be done within a period of one month
from the date of this judgment.
42. We place on record our appreciation for the efforts put in
by Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae for extending
support and suggestion and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned
Solicitor General for taking a fair stand on behalf of the State
of Madhya Pradesh.
..............................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 21, 2025.
38