1 2025:CGHC:52847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7554 of 2023 Manohar Lal Soni S/o Kamal Kishore Soni, Aged About 50 Years Working As Stenographer In The Industrial Court Bilaspur, R/o Green Park Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary, Department of Labour, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chairman, C.G. Industrial Court Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh Industrial Court Through Registrar, C.G. Industrial Court Ghadi Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Member, Chhattisgarh Industrial Court, Circuit Court, Bilaspur, Green Park Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.29 18:16:29 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ order or directions to the respondents and be passed the order to expunge the ACR of the petitioner in the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 & 23.08.2023 Annexure P/1 and also directed the respondent no. 2 to pass reasonable and speaking order. 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. The petitioner herein calls in question the legality, validity and correctness of the orders dated 22.07.2022 and 23.08.2023, by which his representations for expunging the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 have been rejected. 4. The petitioner is working under the respondents in the office of respondent No.5 on the post of Stenographer. His services have continued since the date of his appointment in the year 1990 without any complaint or disciplinary proceeding. The ACRs of the petitioner for the last nine years from 2010–2011 to 2018–2019 have been graded either ‘A’ (Very Good) or ‘B’ (Good). However, during the Covid–19 period, the ACRs for the years 2019–2020 3 and 2020–2021 were graded as ‘C’ (Average) by respondent No.5, which were communicated to the petitioner subsequently. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that for the ACR year 2019–2020, the Reporting Officer on 04.06.2020 had initially graded the petitioner as “Good” (‘B’), but after about 18 months, on 14.12.2021, respondent No.5 acting as the Accepting Officer, downgraded the same to “C” without any justification, which is contrary to the settled service law. For the ACR year 2020–2021, respondent No.5 himself acted both as Reporting Officer and Accepting Officer, contrary to the Rules. 6. The petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No.2 on 02.04.2022, praying for expunging the adverse remarks from his ACRs for 2019–2020 and 2020–2021. The said representation came to be rejected by respondent No.2, Under Secretary, Department of Labour, vide orders dated 22.07.2022 and 23.08.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the said orders are unreasoned and non-speaking, and further, that the Under Secretary is subordinate to the Reporting Officer (Respondent No.5), and therefore, not competent to decide the representation. 7. Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner’s representations are non-speaking and unreasoned, thus violative of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab & others [(1979) 2 SCC 368] and 4 the Under Secretary, being subordinate to the Reporting Officer, could not have considered or decided the petitioner’s representation, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India & others [(2008) 8 SCC 725], followed in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India & others [(2013) 9 SCC 566]. 8. Per contra, Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner's representations have been duly considered and rejected by the competent authority, and the grading given in the ACRs is based on proper assessment of performance. It is also submitted that the writing of ACRs is the prerogative of the employer, and no interference is warranted. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s ACRs from 2010–2011 to 2018–2019 were graded “A” and “B”. However, for the years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021, during the Covid–19 period, the petitioner was graded “C” by respondent No.5. The representations made by the petitioner against the adverse grading have been rejected by the Under Secretary, who is admittedly lower in rank than the Reporting Officer (respondent No.5). 5 11. The question which arises for consideration is whether the representation against adverse remarks can be decided by an authority lower in rank than the one who has made the entry. 12. The Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) has held that representation against downgrading must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. It has been observed by their Lordships as under: - "37. ... We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the 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 servants. the State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible." 13. The Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) has clearly held that an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality. "17. The principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities 6 unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. ..." 14. Similarly, in Dev Dutt (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have recognised the right of a Government servant to have an opportunity to represent against the adverse remark and held as under: - "22. 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 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 promoted." In paragraph 37, their Lordships further held that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the authority concerned, and the authority concerned must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. 15. This principle of law laid down in Dev Dutt (supra) was followed in Sukhdev Singh (supra) and further followed in the matter of 7 Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC & others [(2015) 14 SCC 427]. 16. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the Under Secretary, being subordinate to the Reporting Officer (respondent No.5), could not have adjudicated upon the petitioner’s representation. The rejection of the petitioner’s representation and review representation by such an authority is therefore unsustainable in law. 17. Moreover, the impugned orders are non-speaking and show no application of mind. As held in Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra), an adverse remark in the confidential roll cannot be acted upon unless the employee has been given a meaningful opportunity to represent, and the representation must be decided by a reasoned and speaking order. 18. In the present case, the adverse entries for the Covid–19 period were recorded after considerable delay, without considering the petitioner’s past record of consistently “Good” and “Very Good” gradings, and were later upheld by a non-speaking order of a subordinate authority. Such action cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. 19. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 22.07.2022 and 23.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) are hereby set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s 8 representations afresh in respect of the ACRs for the years 2019– 2020 and 2020–2021, in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh