Confidential report can’t be ignored for police officer’s promotion: SC

CHENNAI: Can the annual confidential report of an officer be ignored for promotionmerely because his/her seniors delayed writing it? No, the Supreme Court has ruled, setting aside, in part, the verdict of the Madras high court which refused to consider the delayed ACR of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) for Indian Police Service (IPS) promotion.

 The ACR was an integral part of an officer's 'service record', the apex court said.

The matter pertains to a Tamil Nadu DSP recruited in May 1985. A select committee under IPS (appointment by promotion) regulations considered him for promotion in 1994-95. It examined ACRs from April 1989 to March 1994, and in March 1995 graded him 'good'. But, as the ACR for 1992-93 was missing, and a part of the ACR from April 1993 to July 1993 was not written, they could not be scrutinised. He was promoted to IPS in 1995-96 with year of allotment as 1993.

Some officers opposed his selection and moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which directed a fresh selection process. A review committee met in March 1999, considered the missing and partly unwritten ACR that graded him 'very good', and promoted him to IPS with 1991 as the year of allotment.

A batch of petitions was then filed in the CAT against the officer's selection. The tribunal said while his missing ACR could be considered, the partly delayed report could not be taken into account as it was written beyond the period prescribed by the state government. So his selection was not valid, it said.

The officer then filed a writ petition in the Madras high court against the CAT order. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) told the high court that his promotion was according to law and on merit, even after excluding the delayed ACR. The high court, however, upheld the CAT verdict, following which he filed a plea in the apex court.

A bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Prafulla C Pant said the state government's GO prescribing the time limit for writing an ACR was not mandatory but directory. So there was no error in considering the delayed report. "The writing and review of the ACR was beyond his control. We do not see any rational basis on which he could be disadvantaged merely because his superior officers were lax in discharging their responsibilities," said the bench, upholding the decision of the review committee.