Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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.

Latest Legal News