Supreme Court Overturns High Court Ruling in Haryana IAS Officer’s Performance Appraisal Case

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of The State of Haryana vs. Ashok Khemka & Anr., concerning the performance appraisal of a senior IAS officer. The judgment addresses the role of the Accepting Authority in the appraisal process and limits judicial interference in administrative evaluations.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) of Ashok Khemka, a 1991 batch Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officer from Haryana. His PAR for the financial year 2016-2017 became a subject of dispute when different authorities gave varying overall grades:

Reporting Authority (Chief Secretary, Haryana): 8.22
Reviewing Authority (Health Minister, Haryana): 9.92
Accepting Authority (Chief Minister, Haryana): 9.00

Feeling aggrieved by the downgrade from the Reviewing Authority’s 9.92 to the Accepting Authority’s 9.00, Khemka challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his plea. He then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ruled in his favor, restoring the Reviewing Authority’s grading of 9.92. The State of Haryana subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

Whether the Accepting Authority (Chief Minister) had the right to modify the Reviewing Authority’s grading.
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the appraisal process.
Whether the delay in the appraisal process affected its validity.

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Haryana)

The State of Haryana, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, argued that:

The Accepting Authority has the final say in the appraisal process under Rule 5(1) of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (PAR Rules).
The overall grading of 9.00 was still in the ‘Outstanding’ category, and no prejudice was caused to Khemka.
The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering in an administrative process requiring expert evaluation.
Previous PARs of Khemka were also finalized beyond the prescribed timelines, and he had never raised any objections.

Arguments by the Respondent (Ashok Khemka)

Khemka’s counsel, Shreenath A. Khemka, contended that:

The Accepting Authority downgraded his grading arbitrarily without any justifiable reason.
The delay of 184 days in finalizing the Accepting Authority’s comments made the appraisal process unfair.
The High Court correctly restored the Reviewing Authority’s 9.92 rating as it was given in a fair and transparent manner.
The downgrade negatively impacted his career progression and future empanelment.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

1. The Accepting Authority’s Role Is Final

The Supreme Court ruled that the Accepting Authority’s decision is binding unless it is arbitrary or unreasonable. It stated:

“The Accepting Authority is the final evaluator in the PAR process, and its decision cannot be substituted by that of the Reviewing Authority.”

2. Delay in Finalization Does Not Invalidate the PAR

The Court acknowledged the delay in finalizing the appraisal but held that it did not render the PAR invalid:

“A delay in the Accepting Authority’s comments does not automatically vitiate the PAR, provided it remains within the broader framework of the rules.”

3. No Prejudice Was Caused to the Officer

The Court found that the difference between 9.92 and 9.00 did not materially impact Khemka’s career, as both scores fell under the ‘Outstanding’ category. It ruled:

“Since the officer’s grading remained in the highest category, no demonstrable prejudice was caused to his promotion or empanelment.”

4. High Court Should Not Have Interfered

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for interfering in an expert administrative evaluation:

“Judicial interference in administrative decisions should be exercised with caution, particularly in specialized fields like performance evaluation.”

5. Final Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and upheld the Accepting Authority’s grading of 9.00. It directed the Accepting Authority to consider Khemka’s pending representation within 60 days. The Court concluded:

“The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s judgment is set aside, and the Accepting Authority’s grading of 9.00 stands. The officer’s pending representation must be decided within 60 days.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for administrative law and performance appraisals:

Reinforces the Accepting Authority’s final say: The judgment upholds that the Accepting Authority’s decision cannot be overridden without compelling reasons.
Limits judicial interference: Courts must avoid intervening in specialized administrative evaluations.
Clarifies performance appraisal timelines: Delays in appraisal do not necessarily render them invalid.
Ensures fairness in administrative processes: Employees can still challenge unfair assessments, but only through established procedures.

The ruling ensures that performance evaluations in civil services remain an administrative function rather than a subject of judicial review, except in cases of clear arbitrariness.

Petitioner Name: The State of Haryana.
Respondent Name: Ashok Khemka & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 11-03-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: the-state-of-haryana-vs-ashok-khemka-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-03-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category