"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Accepting Authority's Timeliness in Appraisal Report Submission Upheld by Supreme Court; High Court's Reassessment of IAS Ashok Khemka Officer's Performance Deemed Inappropriate

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, dealt with the issue of timeliness and authority discretion in the completion of Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) under the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007. The apex court evaluated the legality of delays in the submission of appraisal reports of IAS Ashok Khemka and the extent of judicial intervention permissible in administrative decisions.

The case revolved around the PAR of an IAS officer, Mr. Ashok Khemka, and involved differences in appraisal grades given by various authorities. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had previously set aside an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), leading to the current appeal. The key issues were:

Whether the delay by the Accepting Authority in finalizing the PAR was in breach of the PAR Rules.

The appropriateness of the High Court's intervention in re-evaluating the officer's performance.

Timeliness of Performance Appraisal Report: The Court held that while the Accepting Authority delayed the PAR, it was still within the ultimate timeframe of Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules. This delay, per the Court, did not invalidate the appraisal.

Judiciary's Interference in Administrative Decisions: The Supreme Court underscored that the judiciary should restrain from delving into the merits of administrative decisions, particularly those requiring specialized expertise, like evaluating an IAS officer's performance.

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, restoring the assessment and grades given by the Accepting Authority in the PAR. The Court directed the Accepting Authority to resolve any pending representations within 60 days.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2024

The State of Haryana vs. Ashok Khemka & Anr.

Similar News