LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/in-re-performance-appraisal-reports-of-the-officers-of-the-indian-forest-service-vs-20250521/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Constitutional · Reportable judgment

In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service vs -

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 May 2025
Case No.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Augustine George Masih
Citation
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1449 : 2025 INSC 748
Acts & Sections
Constitution Madhya Pradesh Government Business… All-India Services Act, 1951 All-India Services (Confidential Rolls)… All India Services (Confidential Rolls)… All-India Services (Performance Appraisal…
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1449 : 2025 INSC 748
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as to whether the officers in the Indian Administrative Service-IAS would be a “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” of the officers working in the Indian Forest Service-IFS.
Headnote

Service law – Performance Appraisal Report – Writing Performance Appraisal Report of the officers belonging to the Indian Forest Service-IFS by the officers in the Indian Administrative Service-IAS – Propriety:

Held: For writing Annual Confidential Reports-ACRs, in relation to officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-APCCF, the “reviewing authority” or “reporting authority” should be the immediate superior authority-PCCF in the Forest Department – Thus, up to the APCCF, the “reporting authority” and the “reviewing authority” would be the person within the same department – It is only with regard to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-PCCF that the “reporting authority” would be a person who was familiar with the work of PCCF and would be a person to whom he reports and who is superior to him in rank and hierarchy – Said “reporting authority” would be a person other than the one belonging to the service because there was no one superior to the PCCF within the service – Government Order dated 29.06.2024 notified by the Government of Madhya Pradesh with regard to writing Performance Appraisal Report of the officers belonging to the IFS that before evaluating the performance of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Conservator or Chief Conservator of Forest (Reporting Authorities) will seek a note from the District Collector and before evaluating the performance of the Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development) will seek a note from the Divisional Commissioner – Said G.O. in violation of the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings dated 22.09.2000 –**Santosh Bharti’s case and is quashed and set aside – State of Madhya Pradesh to reframe the rules by strictly adhering to the directions issued in – **Santosh Bharti’s case, and as clarified by the MoEF and DoPT. [Paras 34, 37, 39, 41]

Keywords: Indian Administrative Service · “Reporting authority” · “Reviewing authority” · “Accepting authority” · Indian Forest Service · Performance Appraisal Report · Writing Performance Appraisal Report of the officers belonging to Indian Forest Service by the officers in the Indian Administrative Service · Annual Confidential Reports · Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest · Immediate superior authority · Forest Department · Principal Chief Conservator of Forests · Superior in rank and hierarchy

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

INDEX* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 3 II. SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................ 4 III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ................................................... 7 (i) Statutory Provisions ......................................................... 7 (ii) Internal Communications ................................................. 10 (iii) Legal Precedents .............................................................. 17 (a) State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General o
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →