#ACR

CAT Ernakulam ruled that the Administration's failure to maintain APARs during an employee's study leave cannot justify withholding MACP arrears from 2004. The Tribunal held that FR-24 mandates annual increments as a matter of course unless withheld through due process, and directed the Screening Committee to evaluate the claim on whatever records exist. The decision protects government servants from losing financial upgradation due to administrative lapses.

MP High Court rules that denial of promotion based on uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) violates principles of natural justice. The petitioner is entitled to promotion from the date his junior was promoted, along with consequential benefits, as adverse ACRs must be disclosed before affecting career progression.

Delhi High Court rules that an adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) entry must be reviewed by an authority independent of the one who made the entry. Failure to communicate the entry within a reasonable time violates Article 14, and RTI cannot substitute this constitutional duty, affecting service law fairness for public employees.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that even a single adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) on integrity, despite judicial exoneration, is sufficient to uphold compulsory retirement under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The court emphasized that institutional trust and administrative discretion override an otherwise unblemished service record, setting a precedent for employment disputes involving integrity concerns.

High Court of Meghalaya holds that adverse ACR entries cannot form basis for denial of promotion unless formally communicated to the serviceman, upholding natural justice.