### Administrative Rejection of ACR Representation by the Endorsing Authority Violates Principles of Natural Justice

The Petitioner joined EdCIL (India) Limited in 2008 and served as Chief General Manager.

Historically graded "Outstanding" or "Very Good," he received an "Unsatisfactory" grading in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2015-2016.

The Petitioner challenged this grading citing unworkable revised targets set late in the year, staff shortages, and a period of medical leave following an on-duty accident.

He resigned on June 20, 2016, and only discovered the adverse entry later through an RTI request.

His subsequent representation was rejected on August 11, 2017, by the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD), who had also served as the Reviewing and Accepting Authority for the original ACR.

Whether the process of recording and communicating the "Unsatisfactory" grading was procedurally fair and transparent.

Whether a representation against an adverse ACR can be legally decided by the same authority that endorsed the original entry.

Whether the rejection of the Petitioner’s representation was a "speaking order" that addressed the specific constraints and grounds raised.

The Court primarily applied the principles of transparency and fairness in performance appraisals as established in *Dev Dutt v. Union of India* (2008) 8 SCC 725, which mandates that every entry in an ACR/APAR affecting an employee’s prospects must be communicated within a reasonable time, regardless of whether it is termed "adverse".

It further relied on *Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India* (2013) 9 SCC 566, reinforcing the right to make a representation for upgradation.

The Court also invoked the principle of *nemo judet in causa sua* (no one should be a judge in their own cause), asserting that a representation must be considered by an authority higher than the one who recorded the entry to ensure the remedy is not "an appeal from Caesar to Caesar".

The Court found that the Respondents failed to meet the minimum standards of procedural fairness.

First, the lack of proactive communication of the "Unsatisfactory" grading—forcing the Petitioner to rely on RTI—violated the mandate in *Dev Dutt*.

Second, the Court noted a significant structural infirmity: the CMD acted as both the Reviewing/Accepting Authority and the Appellate Authority.

This overlap rendered the grievance redressal mechanism "illusionary," as the law requires an independent application of mind by a superior or insulated authority.

Finally, the Court observed that the rejection letter dated August 11, 2017, was "cryptic" and "non-speaking," failing to engage with the Petitioner's specific contentions regarding revised targets and medical restrictions, thereby violating the requirement for reasoned administrative decisions.

It held that while courts cannot substitute their own judgment for a professional performance appraisal, they must ensure the process is not “tainted by manifest arbitrariness”.

The Court directed Redpondents to restore the Petitioner’s representation for fresh consideration by an authority higher than the original Reviewing Authority or by an institutional Board mechanism insulated from the prior endorsement.

The new decision must be a reasoned, speaking order passed within eight weeks.