Authorities deciding adverse ACR representations must pass reasoned, speaking orders addressing every ground raised.

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), was appointed in the respondent department on 15 January 1985 and posted to the 5th Battalion, Morena, on 15 June 1993.

A memorandum dated 10 September 2013 sought his explanation regarding pending cases relating to unauthorised absence and sick leave for 2011–12 and 2012–13. He submitted his explanation on 12 September 2013.

Subsequently, an adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year ending 31 March 2013 was communicated to him by order dated 15 May 2014.

The petitioner challenged the adverse ACR through a representation dated 12 August 2014, which was rejected by the respondent authority on 23 December 2014. His second representation, made under the Circular dated 17 January 2013, was rejected on 19 June 2015.

He also asserted that the Reporting Officer had graded him “A+”, but the Reviewing Authority downgraded the grading to “C” without properly considering his performance.

1. Whether the orders dated 23 December 2014 and 19 June 2015 rejecting the petitioner’s representations against the adverse ACR were invalid for being non-speaking, unreasoned, and for failing to consider the specific grounds raised by the petitioner?

2. Whether the authority deciding the petitioner’s representation was required to consider the Commandant’s explanation regarding his absence and the pendency of the relevant cases?

An administrative or quasi-judicial authority exercising discretionary power must act diligently, reasonably, and rationally, and must record reasons where its decision prejudicially affects a person.

In State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, the Supreme Court held that an administrative or executive decision must be composite and self-sustaining, containing the reasons that prevailed upon the decision-maker; the Government cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously.

In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court affirmed that reasons are an essential component of fair administrative decision-making, restrain arbitrary exercise of power, demonstrate consideration of relevant factors, and facilitate judicial review.

Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, further held that reasons supplied in an appellate order cannot cure the absence of reasons in the original order, since an appeal is not a complete substitute for a fair original decision-making process.

The Court found that the petitioner’s representations had been rejected without addressing the specific objections and grounds raised by him, rendering the orders dated 23 December 2014 and 19 June 2015 prima facie non-speaking and unreasoned.

Applying the requirement of reasoned administrative decision-making, the Court held that the authority had to demonstrate that it had objectively considered the petitioner’s explanation, his challenge to the adverse ACR, the difference between the Reporting Officer’s “A+” grading and the Reviewing Authority’s “C” grading, and the circumstances concerning the Commandant’s absence and the pending cases.

Since the existing orders did not disclose such consideration, the Court directed a fresh decision by the Inspector General (Administration), rather than treating the earlier rejection orders as sufficient.

The Inspector General was directed to consider every ground raised by the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

While deciding the representation, the authority was specifically directed to consider the Commandant Kamal Kishore Sharma’s explanation that he had remained on leave during the relevant period and that the cases concerning unauthorised absence and leave remained pending on account of his absence.