Court overturns denial of promotion due to undisclosed performance entries, emphasizing disclosure to public servants.

The court set aside the order denying the Second ACP to the respondent due to non-communicated ACR entries, emphasizing the importance of disclosing such entries to public servants. The Supreme Court's precedent highlighted that withholding ACR information affecting promotions could violate constitutional rights. As the ACR entries were not shared with the respondent on the critical date, the denial of the ACP was deemed unjust. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the Additional Commissioner of Customs within three months, aligning with the court's directives and principles. Writ Petitions were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order denying Second ACP based on non-communicated ACR entries for eligibility.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order denying Second ACP to the first respondent based on non-communicated Annual Confidential Report (ACR) entries. The first Writ Petition was filed by the Commissioner of Customs and others, contesting the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 9.4.2012, which directed the grant of Second ACP to the first respondent. The Tribunal's order did not quash the initial order denying the ACP, leading to the filing of a second Writ Petition seeking to quash the original order. The crucial issue revolved around the reliance on non-communicated ACR entries to determine the first respondent's eligibility for the Second ACP. The ACR entries labeled as "Just adequate" were not conveyed to the first respondent on the critical date of 6.8.2007, resulting in the denial of the ACP.

The judgment referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Ghose Dastidar v s. Union of India, emphasizing the significance of communicating ACR entries to public servants. The Supreme Court held that non-communication of ACR entries with potential consequences on promotions or benefits could be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, the ACR entries of "Just adequate" were not communicated to the first respondent on the crucial date, rendering them unreliable for assessing his eligibility for the Second ACP. Consequently, the petitioners could not consider the non-communicated ACR entries to evaluate the first respondent's claim for the ACP from 6.8.2007 onwards.

The Tribunal's decision to grant the Second ACP to the first respondent was criticized for not addressing the core issue of reliance on non-communicated ACR entries. The learned counsel for the first respondent agreed to set aside the Tribunal's order and requested the matter to be reconsidered by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. As a result, the Additional Commissioner was directed to review the case for the Second ACP for specific years and issue fresh orders within three months, adhering to the judgment's principles. The Writ Petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

---