Service law – Assam Police Manual – r. 63(iii) – Assam Police Act, 2007 – s. 14(2) – Reporting Authority, entitled to initiate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers working as District Superintendents of Police (SPs) in the State of Assam – Assessment initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, as the ‘Reporting Authority’, if lawful – r. 63(iii), if violative of s. 14(2):
Held: 1970 Rules/2007 Rules define reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities to mean that they must all be from the same service or department, intervention by the Deputy Commissioner during the exercise of performance assessment of SPs of the districts in the State of Assam, by virtue of r. 63(iii), cannot be accepted, being in direct conflict therewith, and would tantamount to permitting the Deputy Commissioner to interfere with the internal organization of the police force, which would be contrary to the mandate of s.14(2) – It cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner is the most suitable person to assess the performance of the SP, as he works under his control and direction – Clause 6 in r. 3 relating to appraisal by the ‘Reporting Authority’, Law and Order is only one of the twenty named domains within the purview of the Deputy Commissioner, thus, the Deputy Commissioner would not even be competent to assess the overall performance of the SP – Furthermore, the Circular issued by the Government of India stipulated that the ‘Reporting Authority’ should be in a higher grade of pay than the officer reported upon – State Governments must ensure that a member of the service does not initiate the Confidential Report of another member of the service in the same grade of pay – Thus, r. 63(iii) does not fit in with the scheme obtaining under the 1970 Rules and the 2007 Rules – Conclusion by the High Court, that the r. 63(iii) which prescribes that such assessment should be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, as the ‘Reporting Authority’ is invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with s.14(2), is upheld – Circular No. 11059/4/89-AIS.III, dated 28.12.1990. [Paras 16, 18, 19, 23, 25-27] Assam Police Act, 2007 – s. 14(1) and (2) – Harmonious construction of the provisions:
Held: On a plain reading, s. 14(1) and s. 14(2) appear to be in derogation of each other, inasmuch as s.14(1) vests the Deputy Commissioner with control over the SP but s. 14(2) makes it clear that such control would not extend to the Deputy Commissioner interfering with the internal organization or discipline within the police force in the district – These provisions must be harmoniously construed by restricting the power vesting in the Deputy Commissioner u/s. 14(1), by duly carving out what has been excepted u/s. 14(2) – Such harmonious construction necessary to give effect to both provisions, so that they operate without conflict. [Para 21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
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.