1987 (4) TMI 482 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Home Secretary to write a confidential report on the Inspector General of Police.
2. Delay in communicating adverse remarks to the respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Home Secretary to write a confidential report on the Inspector General of Police:

The primary issue in this appeal was whether the State Government was justified in specifically empowering the Home Secretary as the reporting authority for the purpose of writing a confidential report on the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The relevant provisions under scrutiny were Section 3 of the All-India Services Act, 1951, and Rule 2(e) of the All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970.

Section 3 of the All-India Services Act, 1951, empowers the Central Government to make rules for the regulation of recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to an All-India Service. The Central Government framed the Rules under this section. Rule 2(e) defines the "reporting authority" as the authority who was, during the period for which the confidential report is written, immediately superior to the member of the Service and such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government.

The Court noted that the expression "immediately superior" indicates that the reporting authority should be the immediate superior officer in the same Service to which the member of the Service belongs. However, the IGP, being the head of the Police Department, has no immediate superior officer within the Police Service. Therefore, the first part of clause (e) was inapplicable to the respondent.

The Court further analyzed whether the State Government could specifically empower any authority as the reporting authority under the second part of clause (e). It concluded that a reporting authority must be a person to whom the member of the Service is answerable for his performances, implying that the reporting authority should be superior in rank. The Court held that the State Government could only empower an authority superior in rank to the IGP as the reporting authority.

The Court rejected the contention that the Home Secretary was the head of the Police Department under the Business of the Haryana Government (Allocation) Rules, 1974. It clarified that the Secretary of the Home Department is the head of the Home Department but does not become the head of the Police Department merely because he conducts its business on behalf of the Government.

The Court concluded that the only authority who could be specifically empowered as the reporting authority for the IGP under clause (e) of Rule 2 was the Minister-in-Charge of the Police Department. The Chief Minister, being superior to the Minister-in-Charge, could act as the reviewing authority under clause (f) of Rule 2. The Division Bench of the High Court was justified in quashing the confidential report written by the Home Secretary on the respondent's work and conduct.

2. Delay in communicating adverse remarks to the respondent:

The second issue was the delay in communicating the adverse remarks to the respondent. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, a confidential report assessing the performances, character, conduct, and qualities of every member of the service should be written for each financial or calendar year, ordinarily within two months of the close of the said year. Rule 6 provides that the confidential report should be reviewed by the reviewing authority ordinarily within one month of its being written. Rule 6A states that the confidential report, after review, should be accepted with necessary modifications and countersigned by the accepting authority, ordinarily within one month of its review. Rule 7 mandates that adverse remarks must be communicated to the officer concerned within three months of receiving the confidential report.

The Court observed that the entire process, from writing the confidential report to communicating adverse remarks, should be completed within a maximum period of seven months. In this case, the adverse remarks were communicated to the respondent after twenty-seven months, significantly exceeding the stipulated period.

The Court emphasized that the purpose of making and communicating adverse remarks is to give the officer an opportunity to improve his performance, conduct, or character. The adverse remarks should be seen as advice rather than punishment. Delayed communication defeats this purpose. Although the provisions of Rules 5, 6, 6A, and 7 are directory and not mandatory, substantial compliance is necessary. An inordinate delay, as in this case, is against the spirit and object of the directory provisions.

The Court did not strike down the adverse remarks solely on the ground of delay but disapproved of the inordinate delay in communicating them to the respondent.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which quashed the confidential report written by the Home Secretary, was upheld. The Court emphasized that the Minister-in-Charge of the Police Department should be the reporting authority for the IGP, with the Chief Minister acting as the reviewing and accepting authority. The Court also disapproved of the significant delay in communicating adverse remarks to the respondent, highlighting the importance of timely communication for the intended purpose of such remarks. There was no order as to costs.