The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that the failure to communicate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) to a government employee violates the foundational principle of natural justice. In a significant ruling, the Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to seek upgradation of adverse ACRs that were never formally conveyed to him, reinforcing procedural fairness in administrative evaluations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Akram Khan, served as a Driver in the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. He was initially appointed on 20.02.2010 and his services were regularized on 23.05.2012. For the years 2012 to 2019, his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) consistently reflected grades of 'Good' and 'Very Good'. However, for the periods 18.07.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to 31.08.2020 (Annexure P-9), and 01.09.2020 to 06.01.2021 (Annexure P-10), he was rated 'Poor' without any prior notice, explanation, or opportunity to respond.
Key Facts
- Petitioner was appointed as Driver on 20.02.2010
- Services regularized on 23.05.2012
- ACRs from 2012 to 2019 consistently rated 'Good' or 'Very Good'
- Adverse ACRs for 18.07.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to 31.08.2020 rated 'Poor' (Annexure P-9)
- Adverse ACR for 01.09.2020 to 06.01.2021 rated 'Poor' (Annexure P-10)
- Petitioner obtained copies of the impugned ACRs only through an RTI application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005
- No formal communication of the adverse remarks was made to the petitioner prior to their disclosure via RTI
- Petitioner was terminated from service but was reinstated on 17.11.2022
- No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit a representation or explanation prior to the recording of 'Poor' remarks
Procedural History
- 20.02.2010: Initial appointment as Driver, Family Court, Janjgir
- 23.05.2012: Regularization of services
- 2012 - 2019: Consistent 'Good'/'Very Good' ACR ratings
- 2020 - 2021: Adverse ACRs recorded without communication
- 2022: Termination of services
- 17.11.2022: Reinstatement in service
- 2022: Writ Petition No. 4093 of 2022 filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh
- 28.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Compelling the respondents to produce all records relating to his ACRs
- Expungement of the impugned ACRs for the periods 18.07.2019 to 31.08.2020 and 01.09.2020 to 06.01.2021
- Any other relief deemed just in the interest of justice
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the failure to communicate adverse Annual Confidential Reports to a government servant before their finalization violates the principles of natural justice, and whether such non-communication renders the evaluation process legally unsustainable.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate, submitted that the adverse ACRs were never communicated to the petitioner, depriving him of the opportunity to explain or rebut the allegations. He emphasized that the petitioner only became aware of the remarks through an RTI application, which is not a substitute for formal communication. He argued that the recording of 'Poor' remarks without prior notice or hearing violated Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution and the established doctrine of audi alteram partem. He further requested permission to submit a representation before the competent authority for reconsideration.
For the Respondent
Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri and Mr. Vinay Pandey contended that the petitioner had not pleaded non-communication in the writ petition and raised it for the first time during arguments. They argued that the remarks were based on the petitioner’s conduct, behavior, and integrity, and that the reporting officer had the discretion to assess performance. They further noted that the petitioner had been reinstated, implying that the adverse ACRs did not result in any irreversible consequence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of ACRs as official records that directly impact career progression, promotions, and service benefits. It observed that while ACRs are internal administrative documents, their adverse entries can have lasting consequences on a government servant’s reputation and future prospects.
"Perusal of ACRs of years 2020 and 2021 would make it clear that those ACRs were obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act, 2005, thus it is very much clear that ACRs of years 2020 and 2021 were not communicated to the petitioner."
The Court held that the right to be heard is an essential component of natural justice, and this applies even in administrative evaluations. The fact that the petitioner obtained the ACRs through RTI does not cure the procedural defect of non-communication. The Court rejected the argument that the issue was raised for the first time in arguments, noting that the absence of communication was evident from the record and the petitioner’s prayer for representation was a reasonable remedy.
The Court further clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the 'Poor' remarks, but only on the procedural illegality in their recording. It emphasized that administrative fairness requires transparency and an opportunity to respond before adverse entries are finalized.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, seeking upgradation of the ACRs for the periods 18.07.2019 to 31.08.2020 and 01.09.2020 to 06.01.2021 within 30 days from the date of judgment. The authority concerned was directed to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 90 days of receipt. The Court made it clear that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the remarks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Communication of ACRs Violates Natural Justice
- Practitioners must now argue that any adverse ACR entry without prior communication to the employee is procedurally invalid, regardless of whether the employee was terminated or reinstated
- RTI disclosure cannot substitute for formal communication under service rules
- Failure to provide an opportunity to explain adverse remarks renders the evaluation process voidable
Representation Must Be Granted as a Matter of Right
- Government servants have a right to seek reconsideration of adverse ACRs even after the fact, if they were never informed
- Administrative authorities must treat such representations as substantive requests, not mere formalities
- Timelines for disposal of representations (e.g., 90 days) should be strictly adhered to, and delays may invite judicial intervention
ACRs Are Not Discretionary Black Boxes
- ACRs are not mere internal notes; they are official records with legal consequences
- Reporting officers must record reasons for adverse remarks, and those reasons must be communicated to the employee
- Courts will intervene where ACRs are used to penalize employees without procedural safeguards
