[2013] 5 S.C.R. 1004 A SUKHDEV SINGH ·v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.5892 of 2006) APRIL 23, 2013 B [R.M. LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law: C Annual Confidential Repot (ACR) - Communication of the entry therein - To the Public servant (other than military service) - Matter refeffed by Division Bench of Supreme court to Three Judge Bench, finding inconsistency as regards the law laid down on the issue, by the judgments passed in *U.P. D Jal Nigam case and **Major Bahadur Singh case -Subsequently, Supreme Court, in ***Dev Dutt case held that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period - Held: The view taken in Dev Dutt case is leal/y sound and thus approved -E Therefore, every entry in ACR whether it be poor, fair, average, good or very good, must be communicated to the public servant within a reasonable period. ***Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725: 2008 (8) SCR 174 - approved. F Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 16 sec 146 - relied on. Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (9) SC 69: 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 275; K.M. Misra vs. Central Bank of India and Ors. 2008 (9) SCC 120: 2008 (13) SCR G 534 - disapproved. *U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. 1996 (2) SCC 363: 1996 (1) SCR 1118; **Union of India and Anr. vs. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368: H 1004

SUKHOEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 1005 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 385; A.K. Praipak vs. Union of India A (1969) 2 sec 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of /ndia.(1978) 1 sec 248: 1978 (2) SCR 621; Union of India vs. Tutsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398: 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131; Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy (2005) 6 sec 321 : 2005 (3) SCR 81; State of Maharashtra vs. Public B Concern for Governance Trust (2007) 3 SCC 587: 2007 (1) SCR 87 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1996 (1) SCR 1118 referred to Para 1 c 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 385 referred to . Para 1 2008 (8) SCR 174 approved Para 3 1970 (1) SCR 457 referred to Para 3 1978 (2) SCR 621 referred to Para 3 D 1985 (2) Suppl. SeR 131 referred to Para l 2005 (3) SCR 81 referred to Para 3 2007 (1) SCR 87 referred to Pa:-a 3 (2009) 16 sec 146 relied on Para 7 E 2006 (2) Suppl. SeR 275 disapproved Para 9 2008 (13) SCR 534 disapproved Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2005 of the High F Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 6620 CAT of 2003. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant. Mohan Parasaran, SG, D.L. Chidananda, Asha G Nair, S.N. Terdal, Harinder Mohan Singh, Shabana for the G Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. While granting leave on December 12, 2006, a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.) felt that H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A there was inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others1, and Union of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh2 and consequently, opined that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up for B consideration before us. 2. The referral order dated December 12, 2006 reads as follows: "The appellant herein was appointed as Deputy Director of Training on or about 13.11.1992. He attended a training C programme on Computer Applied Technology. He was sent on deputation on various occasions in 1997, 1998 and yet again in 2000. Indisputably, remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports throughout had been "Outstanding" or 'Very good". He, however, in two years i.e. 2000-2001 and D 2001-2002 obtained only "Good" remark in his Annual Confidential Report. The effect of such a downgrading falls for our consideration. The Union of India issued a Office Memorandum on 8.2.2002 wherein the Bench mark for promotion was directed to be "Very Good"in terms of E clause 3.2 thereof. It is also not in dispute that Guidelines for the Departmental Promotion Committees had been issued by the Union of India wherein, inter alia, it was directed as follows:

"..... 6.2.1 (b) The DPC should assess the suitability · F of the employees for promotion on the basis of their Service Records and with particular reference to the CRs for five preceding years irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules. The 'preceding five years' for the aforesaid purpose shall be G decided as per the guidelines contained in the DoP & T O.M No.22011/9/98-Estt.(D), dated 8.9.1998, which prescribe the Model Calendar for DPC read with OM of even number, dated 16.6.2000.(lf more than one CR have 1. (1996) 2 sec 363. H 2. (2006) 1 sec 368. SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 1007 been written for a particular year, all the CRs for the A relevant years shall be considered together as the CR for one year}," The question as to whether such a downgradation of Annual Confidential Report would amount to adverse remark and thus it would be required to be communicated or not fell B for consideration before this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. - (1996) 2 SCC 363 in the following terms:

" We need to explain these observations of the High Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry C is required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required· to be communicated. As we view it the extreme illustration D given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both have a positive grading. All that is required by the authority E recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports F would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one-time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be rejlected in such G . variations, as otherwise, they shall be communicated as such. It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse and to say that an ad'(erse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case H

1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A we have seen the service record of the fir~t respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam we do B not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court." Several High Courts as also the Central Administrative Tribunal in their various judgments followed the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam (supra), inter alia, to hold that in the C event the said adverse remarks are not communicated causing deprivation to the employee to make an effective representation there against, thus should be ignored. Reference may be made to 2003(1) ATJ 130, Smt. T.K.Aryaveer Vs.Union of India & Ors, 2005(2) ATJ, Page 12, 2005(1) ATJ 509-A.B. Gupta Vs. o Union of India & Ors. and 2003(2) SCT 514- Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. Our attention, however, has been drawn by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents to a recent decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. E Major Bahadur Singh - (2006) 1 SCC 368 where a Division.· Bench of this Court sought to distinguish the U:P. Jal Nigam(supra) stating as follows:

"8. As has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants U.P. Jal Nigam case has no universal F application. The judgment itself shows that it was intended to be meant only for the employees of U.P.Jal Nigam only."

With utmost respect, we are of the opinion that the judgment of U.P.Jal Nigam(supra) cannot h~ld to be G applicable only to its own employees. It has laid down a preposition of law. Its applicability may depend upon the rules entirely in the field but by it cannot be said that no law has been laid down therein. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. H 3. Subsequent to the above two decisions, in the case of SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF !NOIA 1009· Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others3, this Court had an' A occasion to consider the question about the communication of the_ entry in the ACR of a public servant (other than military service). A two Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consider'ation of the ma1ter and also after taking into considera~ion the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam1 and B principles of natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in AK Praipak vs. Union of lndia4; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of lndia5 ; Union of India vs. Tutsi Ram Pate/6 ; Canara Bank vs. ·v.K. Awasthy7 and State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust6 c concluded that every entry in the ACR of a public service must be communicated to him within a reasonable period whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is what this Court in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the report in Dev Outt3 at page 733: • , · D

"In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it-is a poor,Jair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the E entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its F upgradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the 3. c2000) 8 sec 725. G 4. (1969) 2 sec 262. 5. (1978) 1 sec 248. 6. (1985) 3 sec 398. 7. c2005) 6 sec 321. 8. c2007) 3 sec 587. H 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201315 $.C.R. A Constitution. Thus it is not only when there is a benchmark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which B is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that '('Ould boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder."

4. Then in paragraph 22 at page 734 of the report, this Court made the following weighty observations: c "It may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving opportunity to represent against them is particularly important on higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principle of elimination is followed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry can D destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. This often results in grave injustice and heart-burning, and may shatter the morale of many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, while officers of inferior merit may be E promoted." 5. In paragraphs 37 & 41 of the report, this Court then observed as follows:

"We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a F representation against the entry to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the G entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public H servants. The State must be a model employer, and must SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 1011 act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good A governance be possible. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may B affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 6. We are in complete agreement with the view in Dev C Dutt3 particularly paragraphs 17, 18, 22, 37 & 41 as quoted above. We approve the same.

7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others9 followed Dev Dutt3. In paragraph 8 of the Report, this Court with reference to the case D under consideration held as under: "Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of 'good' should have been E communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the ACR of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences F because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitr:ary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, The same view has been reiterated in the above referred. decision relied on by the appellant. G Therefore, the entries "good" if at ,all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the 9. c2009) 16 sec 146. H 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the gradihg given to him."

8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every8 entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve' more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables C him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in th~ ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the . ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must D be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period. 9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and others10 and K.M. Mishra vs. Central Bank of India and others11 and the other decisions of this Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a E good law.

10. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we are informed that the appellant has already been promoted. In view thereof, nothing more is required to be done. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. However, it will be open F to the appellant to make a. representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law. G 11. I.A. No: 3 of 2011 for intervention is rejected. It will be open to the applicant to pursue his legal remedy in accordance with law. K.K.T. , Appeal disposed of. 10. (2006) s sec es. H 111 c2oos> s sec 120.

[2013] 5 S.C.R. 1004 A SUKHDEV SINGH ·v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.5892 of 2006) APRIL 23, 2013 B [R.M. LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law: C Annual Confidential Repot (ACR) - Communication of the entry therein - To the Public servant (other than military service) - Matter refeffed by Division Bench of Supreme court to Three Judge Bench, finding inconsistency as regards the law laid down on the issue, by the judgments passed in *U.P. D Jal Nigam case and **Major Bahadur Singh case -Subsequently, Supreme Court, in ***Dev Dutt case held that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period - Held: The view taken in Dev Dutt case is leal/y sound and thus approved -E Therefore, every entry in ACR whether it be poor, fair, average, good or very good, must be communicated to the public servant within a reasonable period. ***Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725: 2008 (8) SCR 174 - approved. F Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 16 sec 146 - relied on. Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (9) SC 69: 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 275; K.M. Misra vs. Central Bank of India and Ors. 2008 (9) SCC 120: 2008 (13) SCR G 534 - disapproved. *U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. 1996 (2) SCC 363: 1996 (1) SCR 1118; **Union of India and Anr. vs. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368: H 1004

SUKHOEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 1005 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 385; A.K. Praipak vs. Union of India A (1969) 2 sec 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of /ndia.(1978) 1 sec 248: 1978 (2) SCR 621; Union of India vs. Tutsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398: 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131; Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy (2005) 6 sec 321 : 2005 (3) SCR 81; State of Maharashtra vs. Public B Concern for Governance Trust (2007) 3 SCC 587: 2007 (1) SCR 87 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1996 (1) SCR 1118 referred to Para 1 c 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 385 referred to . Para 1 2008 (8) SCR 174 approved Para 3 1970 (1) SCR 457 referred to Para 3 1978 (2) SCR 621 referred to Para 3 D 1985 (2) Suppl. SeR 131 referred to Para l 2005 (3) SCR 81 referred to Para 3 2007 (1) SCR 87 referred to Pa:-a 3 (2009) 16 sec 146 relied on Para 7 E 2006 (2) Suppl. SeR 275 disapproved Para 9 2008 (13) SCR 534 disapproved Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2005 of the High F Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 6620 CAT of 2003. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant. Mohan Parasaran, SG, D.L. Chidananda, Asha G Nair, S.N. Terdal, Harinder Mohan Singh, Shabana for the G Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. While granting leave on December 12, 2006, a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.) felt that H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A there was inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others1, and Union of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh2 and consequently, opined that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up for B consideration before us. 2. The referral order dated December 12, 2006 reads as follows: "The appellant herein was appointed as Deputy Director of Training on or about 13.11.1992. He attended a training C programme on Computer Applied Technology. He was sent on deputation on various occasions in 1997, 1998 and yet again in 2000. Indisputably, remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports throughout had been "Outstanding" or 'Very good". He, however, in two years i.e. 2000-2001 and D 2001-2002 obtained only "Good" remark in his Annual Confidential Report. The effect of such a downgrading falls for our consideration. The Union of India issued a Office Memorandum on 8.2.2002 wherein the Bench mark for promotion was directed to be "Very Good"in terms of E clause 3.2 thereof. It is also not in dispute that Guidelines for the Departmental Promotion Committees had been issued by the Union of India wherein, inter alia, it was directed as follows:

"..... 6.2.1 (b) The DPC should assess the suitability · F of the employees for promotion on the basis of their Service Records and with particular reference to the CRs for five preceding years irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules. The 'preceding five years' for the aforesaid purpose shall be G decided as per the guidelines contained in the DoP & T O.M No.22011/9/98-Estt.(D), dated 8.9.1998, which prescribe the Model Calendar for DPC read with OM of even number, dated 16.6.2000.(lf more than one CR have 1. (1996) 2 sec 363. H 2. (2006) 1 sec 368. SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 1007 been written for a particular year, all the CRs for the A relevant years shall be considered together as the CR for one year}," The question as to whether such a downgradation of Annual Confidential Report would amount to adverse remark and thus it would be required to be communicated or not fell B for consideration before this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. - (1996) 2 SCC 363 in the following terms:

" We need to explain these observations of the High Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry C is required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required· to be communicated. As we view it the extreme illustration D given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both have a positive grading. All that is required by the authority E recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports F would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one-time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be rejlected in such G . variations, as otherwise, they shall be communicated as such. It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse and to say that an ad'(erse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case H

1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A we have seen the service record of the fir~t respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam we do B not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court." Several High Courts as also the Central Administrative Tribunal in their various judgments followed the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam (supra), inter alia, to hold that in the C event the said adverse remarks are not communicated causing deprivation to the employee to make an effective representation there against, thus should be ignored. Reference may be made to 2003(1) ATJ 130, Smt. T.K.Aryaveer Vs.Union of India & Ors, 2005(2) ATJ, Page 12, 2005(1) ATJ 509-A.B. Gupta Vs. o Union of India & Ors. and 2003(2) SCT 514- Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. Our attention, however, has been drawn by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents to a recent decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. E Major Bahadur Singh - (2006) 1 SCC 368 where a Division.· Bench of this Court sought to distinguish the U:P. Jal Nigam(supra) stating as follows:

"8. As has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants U.P. Jal Nigam case has no universal F application. The judgment itself shows that it was intended to be meant only for the employees of U.P.Jal Nigam only."

With utmost respect, we are of the opinion that the judgment of U.P.Jal Nigam(supra) cannot h~ld to be G applicable only to its own employees. It has laid down a preposition of law. Its applicability may depend upon the rules entirely in the field but by it cannot be said that no law has been laid down therein. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. H 3. Subsequent to the above two decisions, in the case of SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF !NOIA 1009· Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others3, this Court had an' A occasion to consider the question about the communication of the_ entry in the ACR of a public servant (other than military service). A two Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consider'ation of the ma1ter and also after taking into considera~ion the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam1 and B principles of natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in AK Praipak vs. Union of lndia4; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of lndia5 ; Union of India vs. Tutsi Ram Pate/6 ; Canara Bank vs. ·v.K. Awasthy7 and State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust6 c concluded that every entry in the ACR of a public service must be communicated to him within a reasonable period whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is what this Court in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the report in Dev Outt3 at page 733: • , · D

"In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it-is a poor,Jair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the E entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its F upgradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the 3. c2000) 8 sec 725. G 4. (1969) 2 sec 262. 5. (1978) 1 sec 248. 6. (1985) 3 sec 398. 7. c2005) 6 sec 321. 8. c2007) 3 sec 587. H 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201315 $.C.R. A Constitution. Thus it is not only when there is a benchmark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which B is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that '('Ould boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder."

4. Then in paragraph 22 at page 734 of the report, this Court made the following weighty observations: c "It may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving opportunity to represent against them is particularly important on higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principle of elimination is followed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry can D destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. This often results in grave injustice and heart-burning, and may shatter the morale of many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, while officers of inferior merit may be E promoted." 5. In paragraphs 37 & 41 of the report, this Court then observed as follows:

"We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a F representation against the entry to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the G entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public H servants. The State must be a model employer, and must SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 1011 act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good A governance be possible. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may B affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 6. We are in complete agreement with the view in Dev C Dutt3 particularly paragraphs 17, 18, 22, 37 & 41 as quoted above. We approve the same.

7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others9 followed Dev Dutt3. In paragraph 8 of the Report, this Court with reference to the case D under consideration held as under: "Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of 'good' should have been E communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the ACR of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences F because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitr:ary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, The same view has been reiterated in the above referred. decision relied on by the appellant. G Therefore, the entries "good" if at ,all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the 9. c2009) 16 sec 146. H 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the gradihg given to him."

8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every8 entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve' more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables C him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in th~ ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the . ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must D be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period. 9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and others10 and K.M. Mishra vs. Central Bank of India and others11 and the other decisions of this Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a E good law.

10. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we are informed that the appellant has already been promoted. In view thereof, nothing more is required to be done. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. However, it will be open F to the appellant to make a. representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law. G 11. I.A. No: 3 of 2011 for intervention is rejected. It will be open to the applicant to pursue his legal remedy in accordance with law. K.K.T. , Appeal disposed of. 10. (2006) s sec es. H 111 c2oos> s sec 120.