On Monday (11th March): The Supreme Court set aside a previous decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had supported the elevated ratings in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of IAS officer Ashok Khemka as per the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules of 2007.In June 2017, Khemka, an IAS officer from the 1991 batch, received an overall grade of 8.22 from the Chief Secretary, who acted as the evaluating authority.
NEW DELHI: 11th March: On Monday, the Supreme Court emphasized that the evaluation of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers’ competencies should remain a matter reserved for the executive branch. The Supreme Court set aside a previous decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had supported the elevated ratings in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of IAS officer Ashok Khemka as per the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules of 2007.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, representing the bench, highlighted the complexity involved in assessing an IAS officer’s performance. They pointed out that such evaluations require a nuanced understanding of administrative responsibilities and, therefore, should be managed by the executive, who has the necessary expertise and authority. This statement was part of their reasoning for setting aside the High Court’s order of March 18, 2019, that favored Khemka, and siding with the appeal made by the Haryana government.
“The overall grading and assessment of an IAS officer requires an in-depth understanding of various facets of an administrative functionary,” a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said. “This administrative oversight ought to have been left to the executive on account of it possessing the requisite expertise and mandate,” the court said, allowing the appeal by the Haryana government against the March 18, 2019, HC order.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Extends Stay on Defamation Case Against Arvind Kejriwal
Background
The case followed Khemka’s performance grading for the year. Initially, in June 2017, the Chief Secretary of Haryana, acting as the reporting authority, assigned Khemka a grade of 8.22. This was later revised to 9.92 by the Haryana Health Minister, the reviewing authority. However, the Haryana Chief Minister, the final accepting authority, adjusted Khemka’s grade down to 9 in December 2017.
Following an unsuccessful appeal to the accepting authority to reconsider this decision, Khemka took his case to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking to eliminate the remarks and restore the grades assigned by the reviewing authority. After the CAT rejected his plea, Khemka appealed to the High Court, which ruled in his favor, overturning the CAT’s decision.
Though he made representations against this, the accepting authority took no decision, after which he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),
“seeking deletion of the remarks and overall grades recorded by the accepting authority and restoration of the overall grades and remarks awarded by the reviewing authority.”.
The bench also noted that the accepting authority had not yet made a decision on Khemka’s initial appeal and directed that a resolution be reached within 60 days from the judgment’s pronouncement.
The bench also noted that
“the accepting authority is yet to decide on the underlying representation (of Khemka)” and directed it “to take a decision…within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.”.
The Supreme Court decision reinforces the principle that the evaluation of IAS officers is a matter best left to the expertise of the executive branch, ensuring that administrative oversight remains within its designated purview.
CASE TITLE: The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka and Anr., SLP(C) No. 13972/2019
