Non-communication of ACR entries affecting promotion is arbitrary and violative of natural justice.

The petitioner, a Field Man at the Panabaras Project Division, challenged a promotion order dated 28.12.2022 where his juniors (Respondents 5 and 6) were promoted to Assistant Project Ranger while he was superseded.

The petitioner stood at Sr. No. 13 in the gradation list, while the promoted juniors were at Sr. Nos. 14 and 16.

The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) denied the petitioner promotion because he secured only 10 marks against a minimum benchmark of 12, citing his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 2020 and 2021 as "incomplete".

The respondent-Corporation admitted that while ACRs were purportedly communicated, there was no documentary evidence or acknowledgment from the petitioner on record.

1. Whether the non-communication of incomplete or below-benchmark ACRs to an employee renders the DPC’s decision to deny promotion arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

2. Whether an employee can be penalized for "incomplete" ACRs attributable to administrative delays by reporting or reviewing authorities.

The Court applied the principles of transparency and fairness in public administration under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the landmark precedent of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008), which mandates that every entry in the ACR (poor, fair, good, or outstanding) must be communicated to the employee to allow for representation.

This was bolstered by the larger Bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013), affirming that non-communication of any entry impacting promotional prospects is impermissible.

Furthermore, the Court cited Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India (2018) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur (2023) to establish that using uncommunicated ACRs for assessment violates the principles of natural justice.

The Court reasoned that the "incompleteness" of the petitioner's ACRs was an administrative failure of the respondents and should not prejudice the employee's career.

Since the respondents could not produce an acknowledgment of service, the ACRs were deemed "uncommunicated" in the eyes of the law.

Applying the Dev Dutt principle, the Court found that by not communicating these entries, the respondents deprived the petitioner of his right to seek a review or upgradation, which directly led to him failing the DPC benchmark.

Consequently, any DPC assessment founded upon such uncommunicated or incomplete ACRs is flawed, as it ignores the mandate of natural justice and fair play.

It held that while undertaking this review DPC, the respondents must exclude any ACR entry not duly communicated and acknowledged by the petitioner.

The Court ordered that if found suitable, the petitioner must be granted all consequential benefits, with the entire exercise to be completed within 60 days.