Dr. Indira Saranath v. Union of India
Background
Dr. Indira Saranath, an officer of the Indian Railway Medical Service, was denied promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) even though a junior officer was promoted instead. She challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal and then the Delhi High Court, both of which ruled against her, holding that she had not secured the required "Very Good+" grading benchmark. She then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the wrong benchmark was applied and that she was never given copies of her own confidential performance reports (ACRs) to contest them.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found three cumulative problems: she was never supplied her ACR entries despite repeatedly asking for them, her service records were inadvertently destroyed while litigation over the same issue was pending, and she had been awarded a fractional score (19.5 points) that had no basis in the governing 1996 promotion policy, which, properly applied, would have given her 20 points. Relying on the principle that non-communication of adverse ACR entries causes real prejudice to an employee, the Court drew an adverse inference against the Railways for the missing records and the unexplained fractional scoring. It held that the appellant was not fairly assessed and set aside both the Tribunal's and the High Court's judgments. However, since her actual service records could not be produced or examined, the Court declined to award full back salary but granted notional promotion to the HAG grade and directed re-fixation of her pension and other retiral benefits in that grade, with arrears paid within two months.
Lesson Learnt
An employer cannot withhold an employee's own confidential performance appraisals from them and then use those same appraisals to deny a promotion; failing to supply ACR entries on request, or losing service records while related litigation is pending, can result in an adverse inference against the employer even years after retirement.