it2025_00348 — Confirmation, after the period of probation is over, is to be decided within a short period of 6 to 8 weeks. Later Adverse Confidential Report should not stand in the way of confirmation of a probationer

Confirmation, after the period of probation is over, is to be decided within a short period of 6 to 8 weeks. Later Adverse Confidential Report should not stand in the way of confirmation of a probationer — This chunk discusses a case where an employee, appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Institute of PGIME in 1983, disputed that he maintained the records properly despite his work being evaluated a... — Facts: The Applicant herein joined as a Lower Division Clerk in the Respondent Institute of PGIME on 29-6-1983, on a probation of 2 years. At the end of two-year probation, the Respondents did not convey any message of his confirmation or otherwise. In the year 85-86 confidential report, he was given a remark to the effect "Need further improvement in maintaining registers". Against that remark, he filed a representation, dated 6-10-1986 stating that he was given the above remark without informing during the course of the year any short-coming in regard to maintenance of records. But his representation did not elicit any reply. On 8-11-1988, a confirmation order of LDCs of the Institutes was issued in which the name of the Applicant did not find a place. Hence he filed a case in the court of sub-Judge, Chandigarh claiming confirmation on par with his juniors and restraining the Respondents from making promotion to the post of UDC till his case is disposed of. That case was disposed of by Order, dated 27-5-1994 directing the disposal of his Representation, dated 6-10-1986 and on that basis to decide his confirmation and promotion. When Applicant represented quoting that court's order, his representation was rejected without a speaking order on 30-1-1995. The Applicant pleads that rejection of his appeal after a period of nine years, that too without any reason is illegal. That prejudiced his case for confirmation and promotion on par with his juniors. His juniors were promoted as UDC in the year 1988. Hence he filed this OA to quash the impugned Order, dated 30-1-1995 and further direction to promote him as UDC on par with his juniors. The Respondents submit that his confirmation was denied due to adverse remark in ACR 85-86. Other details of Civil Suit 228 of 1989 is accepted. However, they disputed the plea of the Applicant that he maintained the registers. It is further stated that with his 2-3 years experience, the Applicant has to maintain the records properly. The order of the sub-Judge was complied with and rejected his representation for non-maintenance of records properly. The Respondents state that his case was considered for promotion for the years 92 to 96 but was not found fit. He obtained adverse ACRs for the years 88-89 to 90-91 which were conveyed to him. The Tribunal examined the records. The substantive prayer of the Applicant is

(i) to expunge the adverse remarks entered in 1985-86,

(ii) to confirm him in service on par with his juniors and

(iii) Grant of promotion with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal held that under jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution, the transferred case from the High Court to consider the present petition for the above reliefs is decided. All the prayers are interrelated. The Tribunal perused the records. There were adverse entries in later years and also a disciplinary case resulting in his placement on suspension. It was noted of the adverse remark in later years and found unfit for promotion. It is not necessary to further examine there points as the question to be answered may not relate to the above records. The question to be answered based on submission of both sides and the records are:

(i) whether the adverse remark entered in the ACR of 1985-86 deserve expunction and a direction to that effect

(ii) Legal validity to refuse confirmation on the basis of relevant records and the adverse remark in question

(iii) whether the denial of his promotion as UDC and further promotion to him in service is in accordance with the rules and the law. The Tribunal considered the above issue. No Court or Tribunal can interfere with the remarks and grading given to an employee in the ACR. However, if the ACR is written with proved mala fides or remarks recorded without justification, it can be interfered by Tribunal. The remark "need further improvement in maintenance of records" even though not of serious nature as admitted by the Applicant, giving such remark without prior warning of his short-comings during the year is incorrect. There is no column in ACR for recording "Overall Grading". Hence on perusal of various remarks in the ACR columns, it can be inferred that the Applicant till 31-3-1987 was "Good". Hence treating the above quoted remark in 1985-86 ACR as adverse has far-fetched implication for that year. If such remarks are considered damaging, the court can expunge such a remark. Further considering the remark as adverse in the ACR 1985-86, the ACRs of Applicant from 29-6-1983 to 31-8-1984, 1984-85 and 1986- 87 can be inferred as “Good”. Hence the non-confirmation of the Applicant and his non-promotion as UDC is not justified. However, his promotion further may have to depend on further remarks in service records. As regards confirmation on completion of probation of two years, if not decided at that particular point of time and he is continued, it should be construed as deemed confirmations. In that connection, it was held: