Supreme Court of India
IN RE: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORTS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN FOREST SERVICE versus
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 748
- Decided
- 21 May 2025
Holding
The Court held that, consistent with the Santosh Bharti judgment and the statutory scheme, the reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities for IFS officers up to the rank of APCCF must be their immediate superiors within the Forest Department, rendering the Madhya Pradesh G.O. that appointed IAS officers to those roles invalid and subject to quash.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined a Government Order dated 29 June 2024 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government that made District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners – officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) – the reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities for Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers. The petitioners, comprising IFS officers and their association, challenged the order on the ground that it contravened earlier Supreme Court directions in Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2000) which required the reporting authority for IFS officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF) to be their immediate superior within the Forest Department. The Court analysed the statutory framework under the All‑India Services Act, 1951 and the 1970 and 2007 Rules defining “reporting”, “reviewing” and “accepting” authorities, and considered precedents such as State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa and State of Assam v. Binod Kumar. It held that IAS officers cannot serve as reporting or reviewing authorities for IFS officers up to APCCF, and that the G.O. violated the Supreme Court’s earlier orders. Consequently, the Court quashed the G.O., directed Madhya Pradesh to re‑frame its rules in compliance with the earlier judgment, and allowed the petitioners’ applications.
Issues considered
- Whether IAS officers can be designated as reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities for performance appraisal reports of IFS officers up to the rank of APCCF.
- Whether the Madhya Pradesh Government Order dated 29 June 2024 violates the Supreme Court’s directions in Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2000) and subsequent orders.
- Whether the G.O. is contemptuous of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments.
- Interpretation of the terms “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” under the All‑India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (as amended) and the All‑India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.
Legislation cited
Headnote
1449 : 2025 INSC 748 In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service [(I.A. No. 172422 of 2024 with I.A. No(s). 172425, 172427, 172429, 179359, 290215, 290217 of 2024 and I.A. No(s). 105862, 105864 and 105865 of 2025) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)] In Unit) ... Applicant 21 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI* and Augustine George Masih, J.] 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
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1449 : 2025 INSC 748
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the
Indian Forest Service
[(I.A. No. 172422 of 2024 with I.A. No(s). 172425, 172427,
172429, 179359, 290215, 290217 of 2024 and
I.A. No(s). 105862, 105864 and 105865 of 2025)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)]
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v.
Union of India and Others
In the Matter of:
Gaurav Kumar Bansal ... Applicant
Unnamatla Prakasham ... Applicant
Indian Forest Service Association (State Unit) ... Applicant
21 May 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI* and Augustine George Masih, J.]
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.
Headnotes†
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
* Author
1450 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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]
Case Law Cited
**Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC
273 – relied on.
State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS Inspector General of Police
and Another [1987] 2 SCR 1030 : (1987) 2 SCC 602; State of
Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others [2024] 1 SCR 473 :
(2024) 3 SCC 611 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Madhya Pradesh Government Business
(Allocation) Rules; All-India Services Act, 1951; All-India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970; All India Services (Confidential
Rolls) Second Amendment Rules, 1970; All-India Services
(Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.
List of 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;
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1451
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest; Immediate
superior authority; Forest Department; Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests; Superior in rank and hierarchy; Government Order
dated 29.06.2024; Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial); Conservator
or Chief Conservator of Forest (Reporting Authorities); District
Collector; Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator
(Territorial); Divisional Commissioner; **Santosh Bharti’s case.
Case Arising From
INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Under Article 32 of The
Constitution of India
I.A. No. 172422 of 2024 with I.A. No(s). 172425, 172427, 172429,
179359, 290215, 290217 of 2024 And I.A. No(s). 105862, 105864,
and 105865 of 2025
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
Appearances for Parties
Amicus Curiae:
K. Parameshwar, Harish N. Salve, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Aparajita
Singh, Sr. Advs., M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Shreenivas Patil,
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Siddhartha Chowdhury.
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Prashant Padmanabhan, Ms. Priya Sirohi, Pratyush Jain, Chanchal
Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Syed Mehdi Imam,
T. Harish Kumar, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., M/s. Lawyers’ Knit & Co.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, K. M. Nataraj,
Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.Gs., Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr.
A.A.G. Vaibhav Srivastava, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Nishanth Patil,
Ajay Agarwal, A.A.Gs., Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Shyam
Divan, Dama Seshadri Naidu, A.N.S. Nadkarni, Arunabh Choudhary,
Sanjay Upadhyay, Ms. Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Advs., Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S. S. Rebello, Raghav Sharma,
Gaurang Bhushan, Rohan Gupta, Shyam Gopal, Salvador Santosh
Rebello, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Harish
Pandey, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Krishna Kant
Dubey, Piyush Beriwal, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Mrinal Elker
Mazumdar, Shashwat Parihar, Mukesh K Verma, Vinayak Sharma,
1452 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Raman Yadav, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Tanya Srivastava,
Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Sugandha Anand,
Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Vishnu Kumar Gupta, Ms. Nandita Bansal,
Chandrika Uppadhya, Ms. Rani Mishra, Sandeep Kumar Jha,
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Siddharatha Jha, Saurabh Rajpal, Amogh Bansal,
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Ms. Nina Nariman,
Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Arun Sharma, Shreyas Maheshwari, Sarah
Ayreen Mir, Sharanya Ghosh, Samarth Suri, For M/s. Karanjawala &
Co., Krishna Ballabh Thakur, T.R.B. Sivakumar, Aaditya A . Pande,
Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, E.C. Agrawala,
Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Prashant Padmanabhan,
Ms. Priya Sirohi, Pratyush Jain, Ms. Rani Mishra, Tarun Johri,
Ankur Gupta, Vishwajeet Tyagi, Ms. Nina Nariman, Ramesh Alanki,
Ms. Aruna Gupta, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Ms. Shruti Jose, Chanchal
Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Syed Mehdi Imam,
T. Harish Kumar, M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., M/s. Lawyer S Knit &
Co, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shuvodeep
Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Deepayan Dutta, K. V. Vijayakumar, Mrs.
Rani Chhabra, Ms. Divya Roy, Radha Shyam Jena, Ajit Pudussery,
Ashok Mathur, M/s. Parekh & Co., M/s. K J John And Co, Amarjit
Singh Bedi, Ms. Surekha Raman, Shreyash Kumar, Harshit Singh,
Yashwant Sanjenbam, V. Balachandran, S. C. Birla, Ram Swarup
Sharma, T. Mahipal, Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, H. S.
Parihar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P. R. Ramasesh, Rakesh K. Sharma, P.
N. Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Mahesh Agarwal, Shivam Shukla,
Nilay Gupta, Ms. Deepti Arya, Salvador Santosh, E. C. Agrawala,
Kuldip Singh, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Rajat Joseph,
Gopal Prasad, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Tejaswi
Kumar Pradhan, Pradeep Kar, Pranab Samantaray, M/s. Arputham
Aruna And Co, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. Madhu
Moolchandani, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Rajeev Singh, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur
Dhodi, Surya Kant, E. C. Vidya Sagar, M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates,
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Prashant Kumar,
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar,
Ms. Charu Mathur, A. Venayagam Balan, Sudarsh Menon, Ramesh
Babu M. R., Vikrant Singh Bais, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. K. V. Bharathi
Upadhyaya, Rajiv Mehta, Ejaz Maqbool, Rajesh, M/s. Corporate Law
Group, Lakshmi Raman Singh, B V Deepak, T. N. Singh, C. L. Sahu,
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Abhishek Chaudhary,
Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Gauri Pandey, Gopal Singh, T. V. George,
Krishnanand Pandeya, Neeraj Shekhar, Rajesh Kumar Maurya,
Ujjwal Ashutosh, Ramendra Vikram Singh, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1453
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
Rajesh Singh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Punit Dutt
Tyagi, Rathin Das, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Sudhir Kulshreshtha,
Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh, Youkteshwari
Prasad, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Mata Prasad Pathak, Vijay Singh,
Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Ms. Sushma Suri, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, A.
N. Arora, Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, E. M. S. Anam, Mrs. Bina
Gupta, P. V. Yogeswaran, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. Malini
Poduval, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Ms. Binu Tamta, Shibashish Misra,
K. L. Janjani, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Jai Prakash
Pandey, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, M. Yogesh Kanna, Vikash Singh,
M/s. D.s.k. Legal, Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Rishad A Chowdhury,
Ms. Sohini Sanyal, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Ms. Pallavi Langar,
Ashish Jha, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Naveen
Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, Arijit Dey, Milind Kumar, Mohit Paul,
Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ms. Ankita Sharma,
Arjun D Singh, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil,
Jyotish Pandey, M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Amrish Kumar,
Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.f. Philip, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin
M. Babichen, Ms. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S.s.
Rebello, Raghav Sharma, Gaurang Bhushan, Jagdish Chandra
Solanki, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Sunil Kumar Verma, Prakash
Kumar Singh, Ms. Adarsh Nain, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Keshav
Singh, Bp Naidu, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, T. R.
B. Sivakumar, Sujit Kumar Mishra, Aldanish Rein, Kunal Mimani,
Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Kumar Anurag
Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra
S. Garia, Karan Sharma, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Deeptakirti Verma,
Nishanth Patil, M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Ms. Mayuri
Raghuvanshi, Shubham Upadhyay, Vivek Jain, Sudeep Kumar,
Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rupali, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun
Sharma, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Ms. Anupama Ngangom,
Venkata Raghuvamsy D., Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Chirag M. Shroff,
Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Ms. Aditya Krishna, Adarsh
Dubey, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Tarun Gupta,
Sameer Abhyankar, Krishna Rastogi, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari,
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,
Kamlendra Mishra, Somesh Chandra Jha, Siddhartha Jha,
M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co., Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar,
Shovan Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, P. S. Sudheer, Sunny
Choudhary, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Rajeev Singh,
Ms. Parul Shukla, Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao,
Arun K. Sinha, Naveen Kumar, P. K. Manohar, A. Karthik, Rajiv
1454 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Kumar Choudhry, Anurag Tandon, Akshay Amritanshu, Hariom
Yaduvanshi, Arjun Yaduvanshi, Ms. S. Harini, Avi Dhankhar,
Vansmani Tripathi, Ms. Aahana Jaiswal, Ms. Drishti Rawal,
Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Omanakuttan K. K., B. K. Pal, James P.
Thomas, S. Gowthaman, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Neha Singh,
Siddharth Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Uday
Prakash Yadav, Suhasini Sen, S S Rebello, Raghav Sharma,
Sughosh Subramanium, Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif
Irshad Khan, Anil Kumar Verma, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Sunil Kumar
Sharma, Nishit Agrawal, Krishna Ballabh Thakur, Ms. Aruna Gupta,
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
Prang Newmai, Shishir Deshpande, Shubhranshu Padhi, Nishe
Rajen Shonker, Raghvendra Kumar, Sravan Kumar Karanam,
Abhiram Bannur, Ms. M. Harshini, Anant Mann, Lakshmeesh S.
Kamath, Ms. Samriti Ahuja, Ms. Aditi Prakash, Mrs. Pragya Baghel,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Satyalipsu Ray, Ms. Sunieta Ojha,
Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Saurabh Rajpal, Arpit Bamal, Himinder
Lal, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Kushagra
Sharma, Anuj Agarwal, Akarsh Khare, , Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Atul
Sharma, Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Shrey Kapoor ,
Ms. Anne Mathew, Yash S. Vijay, Kaushik Choudhury, Aravindh S.,
Aman Gautam, Ms. Jyoti P, Dhaval Mehrotra, Binay Kumar Das,
Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Subhasish Mohanty, Mr Rahul Jain, Sabarish
Subramanian, Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Brijesh Kumar,
Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Chinmoy Chaitanya.
Applicant-in-person.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 of Police and Another ............................... 17
(b) Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh ......... 21
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1455
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
(iv) Order of this Court in I.A. No.776 of 2002 in the present
proceedings ....................................................................... 26
(v) Recent judgment of this Court in State of Assam and
Others v. Binod Kumar and Others ................................ 30
(vi) Impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2024 .............................. 32
IV. DIRECTIONS ............................................................................... 37
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, CJI
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The present batch of applications pertains to an issue as to whether
the officers in the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred
to as, “IAS”) would be a “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority”
and “accepting authority” of the officers working in the Indian Forest
Service (hereinafter referred to as, “IFS”).
2. The present applications basically challenge the Government Order
dated 29th June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the, “said G.O.”)
notified by the Government of Madhya Pradesh with regard to writing
Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter referred to as, “PAR”) of
the officers belonging to the IFS. The relevant part of the said G.O.
reads thus:
“2. Before evaluating the performance of the Divisional
Forest Officer (Territorial), the concerned Conservator or
Chief Conservator of Forest (Reporting Authorities) will
seek a note from the District Collector. Similarly and before
evaluating the performance of the Conservator of Forests
and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), the Additional
Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development) will
seek a note from the Divisional Commissioner and these
notes shall be considered during the time of Performance
Appraisal Report (PAR).
3. Comments by Collector and Divisional Commissioner on
performance of Indian Forest Service officers in field positions
1456 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on areas such as MANREGAS, Joint Forest Management,
Forest Rights Act, land acquisition for development projects,
mining, district planning committee decisions, livelihood and
skill development, district archeological and tourism council,
implementation initiatives related to any other development
will be sent on a separate sheet.”
3. The applicants have a grievance with regards to the “reporting
authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” as
prescribed in the said G.O., insofar as certain posts in the IFS are
concerned. The applicants also have a grievance with regard to the
aforementioned paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said G.O.
II. SUBMISSIONS
4. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae and
Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf
of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. Shri Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae submits that the said G.O
issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh is directly in violation
of the judgments delivered by this Court in the cases of State of
Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and
Another1, Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, and the
order passed by this Court in the present proceedings dated 19th
April 2004. The learned amicus curiae therefore submits that the
said G.O. is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh submits that as per the Order
of Precedence of the Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 23rd
December 2011, the Additional Chief Secretary (hereinafter referred
to as, “ACS”) and the Principal Secretary (hereinafter referred to as,
“PS”) hold ranks superior to that of the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests (hereinafter referred to as, “PCCF”). He further submits
that in accordance with the provisions as contained in clauses (2)
and (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Madhya Pradesh has framed the Madhya Pradesh Government
Business (Allocation) Rules. He submits that under the said Rules,
1 (1987) 2 SCC 602
2 (2007) 15 SCC 273
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1457
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
each Secretariat Department is required to have a Secretary to the
Government (ACS/PS). It is submitted that for the Forest Department,
ACS/PS is the official administrative head of the IFS.
7. The learned Solicitor General submits that the Forest Officers and
particularly the Divisional Forest Officer (hereinafter referred to
as, “DFO”) who is the Head of the Division, discharges diverse
responsibilities. It is submitted that the DFO is also responsible
for various duties like conservation of forests, implementation
of government schemes, enforcement of forest laws, forest
fire management, legal matters, financial administration, and
interdepartmental coordination, amongst others. He submits that
therefore, it is necessary that the evaluation of the performance of
DFOs should be accepted by the Secretary of the Forest Department
who is normally an ACS/PS. He submits that similarly even insofar
as the PAR of the Chief Conservators of Forests (hereinafter referred
to as, “CCFs”) is concerned, the “accepting authority” should be
only ACS or PS. He further submits that assigning PCCF or the
Head of Forests as “reviewing authority” or “accepting authority”
for the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (hereinafter
referred to as, “APCCF”) working in vertical roles at the headquarters
is not consistent with the revised appraisal rules. He submits that
the performance must be evaluated by those who have continuing
engagement with the officer’s work.
8. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General fairly submits that
ignoring the role of the ACS/PS in the PAR channel of IFS officers
would not only be contrary to legislative intent but also inconsistent
with principles of governance, accountability and equity in public
administration that demand accountability through real supervision.
He fairly submits that in order to alleviate the fear in the minds of
the IFS officers, the State of Madhya Pradesh has agreed that it will
not insist on marking by the ACS/PS, instead, only comments of the
reviewing officers would be called for.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(i) Statutory Provisions
9. For examining the controversy, it will be relevant to refer to sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the All-India Services Act, 1951 (hereinafter
referred to as, “AIS Act”), which reads thus:
1458 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“3. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of
service.—(1) The Central Government may, after
consultation with the Governments of the States concerned
including the State of Jammu and Kashmir and by
notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for the
regulation of recruitment, and the conditions of service of
persons appointed, to an all-India Service.”
10. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3
of the AIS Act, the Central Government, after consultation with
the Governments of the States concerned, has made the All-India
Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to
as, “1970 Rules”).
11. Rule 2 of the 1970 Rules provides various definitions. It will be relevant
to refer to the following definitions provided in the 1970 Rules:
“2. Definitions.—In these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires:—
(a) ‘accepting authority’ means the authority who was,
during the period for which the confidential report is written,
immediately superior to the reviewing authority and such
other authority as may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government”;
………..
(e) ‘reporting authority’ means the authority who was,
during the period for which the confidential report is written,
immediately superior to the member of the Service and
such other authority as may be specifically empowered
in this behalf by the Government;
(f) ‘reviewing authority’ means the authority who was,
during the period for which the confidential report is written,
immediately superior to the reporting authority and such
other authority as may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government;”
12. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the AIS Act, the Central Government, after consultation with the
Governments of the States concerned, by a notification dated 8th
December 1987, has made the All-India Services (Confidential
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1459
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
Rolls) Second Amendment Rules, 1970, by which the definitions of
“accepting authority”, “reporting authority” and “reviewing authority”
were amended, which read thus:
“(a) ‘accepting authority’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the reviewing
authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf
by the Government”;
………..
(e) ‘reporting authority’ means such authority or authorities
supervising the performance of the member of the Service
reported upon as may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government;
(f) ‘reviewing authority’ means authority or authorities
supervising the performance of the reporting authority
as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government;”
13. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the AIS Act, the Central Government, after consultation with the
Governments of the States concerned, made the All-India Services
(Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to
as, “2007 Rules”). The definitions of “accepting authority”, “reporting
authority” and “reviewing authority” as provided in the 2007 Rules,
read thus:
“(a) ‘accepting authority’ means the authority which
supervises the performance of the reviewing authority
as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the
Government”;
………..
(j) ‘reporting authority’ means such authority or authorities
supervising the performance of the member of the Service
reported upon as may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government;
(k) ‘reviewing authority’ means such authority or
authorities supervising the performance of the reporting
authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf
by the Government;”
1460 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(ii) Internal Communications
14. For deciding the issue in question, it will also be necessary to refer
to certain clarifications and Office Memorandum (hereinafter referred
to as, “O.M.”) issued by the Union of India.
15. Clause 4 of the clarification dated 28th December 1990 reads thus:
“4. Reporting Authority should be in a higher grade
of pay than the officers reported upon and the
Reviewing Authority should be in a higher grade than
the Reporting Authority.- I am directed to refer to Rule
2(e) of the AIS (CR) Rules, 1970, wherein the reporting
authority has been defined as the authority or authorities
supervising the performance of the member of the Service
reported upon as may be specifically empowered in this
behalf by the Government.
2. It appears that some States have kept in view the
seniority and pay scale of the reporting officer vis-à-vis
the Member of the Service reported upon while assigning
reporting authorities whereas others have not. Instances
have come to the notice of this Department wherein ACRs
of the members of All India Service have been initiated by
officers belonging to the same batch or drawing pay in the
same scale as that of the officer reported upon.
3. It is suggested to the State Govts. that while assigning
reporting/reviewing authorities efforts may be made to
ensure that a member of the Service or any other officer
does not initiate the C.R. of another member of the Service
in the same grade of pay. It is also desirable that the
reviewing authority is in a higher grade than the reporting
authority within the limits of administrative convenience.”
16. It can thus be seen that seniority and pay-scales of the reporting
officer vis-à-vis the Member of the Service reported upon is required
to be taken into consideration while assigning reporting authorities.
It further states that various instances have come to notice wherein
Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as, “ACRs”)
of the Members of All India Service have been initiated by officers
belonging to the same batch or drawing pay in the same scale as
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1461
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
that of the officer reported upon. It has therefore been suggested
to the State Governments that while assigning reporting/reviewing
authorities, efforts should be made to ensure that a Member of the
Service or any other officer does not initiate the Confidential Report
(hereinafter referred to as, “C.R.”) of another Member of the Service
in the same grade or pay. It further provides that it is desirable that
the reviewing authority is in a higher grade than the reporting authority
within the limits of administrative convenience.
17. It will also be relevant to refer to a letter of the Ministry of Environment
& Forest (hereinafter referred to as, “MoEF”) dated 8th November
2001, which reads thus:
“(V) WRITING OF REPORTS OF MEMBERS OF THE
INDIAN FOREST SERVICE
1. Writing of Reports of members of the Indian Forest
Service.- Attention of the State Government is invited to this
Ministry’s letter No. 14/20/2000-SU dated 28th September,
2000 vide which a copy of order dated 22/09/2000
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 424
(Civil Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995) : T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad had been forwarded for implementation of
various directions given by the Apex Court.
2. One of the directions of the Apex Court was in regard
to writing of Annual Confidential report of the members
of the Indian Forest Service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
had directed that upto the officers of the rank of Addl.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests the reporting
authority has to be the immediately superior officer within
the Forest Department. It is only in the case of Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest that the reporting authority
would be a person other than the one belonging to the
Service because there is no one superior to him within the
EFS. Therefore, in his case the reporting authority would
be a person to whom he reports and who is superior to
him in hierarchy.
3. Keeping in view the directions given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, all the State Governments are advised
to ensure that for writing the Annual Confidential Reports
of the IFS officers upto the rank of Additional Principal
1462 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Chief Conservator of Forests, the reporting authority
should be their immediate superior authorities in the Forest
Department. As regards reviewing/reporting authority in
relation to officers of the rank of Addl. Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests, the concerned authority would person who is
familiar with their work and that will be the person to whom
addl. PCCF/PCCF reports and who is superior to them in
rank and hierarchy.
4. The State Government may, if necessary direct the
Collectors and Commissioners to record their comments
on a separate sheet about the performance of the IFS
officers in relation to implementation of developmental
work (including 20-point programme) funded by the
District Administration for being considered by the superior
departmental officers at the time of writing of ACRs.
5. The State Governments are requested to ensure that
the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of writing of ACRs, as explained above, are strictly
followed.”
18. It can thus be seen that the said letter specifically noted the order
passed by this Court in the present proceedings titled dated 22nd
September 20003, wherein this Court had directed that up to the
rank of APCCF, the “reporting authority” had to be an immediate
superior officer within the Forest Department. It further noted that
this Court had also directed that it was only in the case of PCCF
that the “reporting authority” would be a person other than the one
belonging to the Forest Service because there was no one superior
to him/her within the IFS. It noted that this Court further directed that
in that case, the “reporting authority” would be a person to whom he
reported and who was superior to him in hierarchy.
19. The aforesaid communication of the MoEF directed all the State
Governments to ensure that for writing the ACRs of the IFS officers
up to the rank of APCCF, the “reporting authority” should be their
immediate superior authorities in the Forest Department. It further
directed that regarding the reviewing/reporting authority in relation
3 (2007) 15 SCC 273
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1463
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
to officers of the rank of APCCF and PCCF, the concerned authority
would be a person who was familiar with their work and that would
be the person to whom APCCF/PCCF reported and who was
superior to them in rank and hierarchy. It further directed that the
State Governments may, if necessary, direct the Collectors and
Commissioners to record their comments on a separate sheet about
the performance of the IFS officers in relation to the implementation
of developmental work (including 20 point programme) funded by
the District Administration for being considered by the superior
departmental officers at the time of writing of ACRs.
20. It will be relevant to refer to the O.M. dated 2nd September 2004
notified by the Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter
referred to as, “DoPT”), which reads thus:
“2. Writing of ACRs of All India Services Officers –
instructions regarding.- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
I.A. No.424 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India & Others)
had considered the issue of the competent authority to
write the confidential report of Forest Department Officers
(implementation of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court). The Ministry of Environment & Forests issued
instructions vide letter No. 22019/1/2001-IFS-I dated 8th
November, 2001 (Copy enclosed).
2.1 This Department filed I.A.No. 477/2003 for modification
or clarification of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the matter
be heard by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC),
constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The
CEC has agreed with the views of Department of Personnel
& Training (DOP&T) that the Hon’ble Court’s order dated
22.09.2000 was issued in a particular context and should
not be generalized to cover other Services. It has also
agreed with the view of the DOP&T that if the Forest Officer
is working in the Secretariat or other Departments where
his immediate supervising officer is a non-forest officer,
his C.R should be written by such an officer [para 8(x)].
2.2 The relevant recommendation of the CEC is reproduced
below:-
1464 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“In the light of the above, the Committee is of
the considered view that this Hon’ble Court’s
order dated 22.09.2000 requires no modification.
The Hon’ble Court’s order has set right the
anomaly that existed in the State of Madhya
Pradesh regarding CRs of the Forest Officers.
The Hon’ble Court’s order is not inconsistent with
the amended CR Rules. It may be clarified that
the order of 22.09.2000 of this Hon’ble Court
is applicable only for reporting, reviewing or
accepting the confidential reports of the Forest
Officers working within the Forest Department
and is not applicable for Forest Officers working
outside the Department or for other Services”.
(para 10).
2.3 In pursuance of the recommendations of CEC, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its order of 26th April,
2004 in I.A.No. 1035, (Report of the Central Empowered
Committee in I.A. No. 776) in WP (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 ,
agreed with the same and has dismissed I.A.No. 424 and
disposed of I.A.No. 1035. A copy of the Recommendation
of the CEC can be made available on request.
2.4 It is therefore, clarified that the order passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.9.2000 is applicable to
Forest Officers working within the Forest Department and
is not applicable to Forest Officers working outside the
Department. It is also clarified that if the Forest Officer
is working in the Secretariat or other Department where
his immediate superior officer is a non-Forest officer, his
CR should be written by that superior officer. This order
of the Hon’ble Apex Court is also not applicable to other
Services viz., the Indian Administrative Service and the
Indian Police Service.”
21. It can thus be seen that the DoPT had clarified that the order passed
by this Court in the present proceedings on 22nd September 2000
(Santosh Bharti case) was applicable to Forest Officers working
within the Forest Department and was not applicable to Forest Officers
working outside the Department. It further clarified that if the Forest
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1465
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
Officer was working in the Secretariat or other Department where his
immediate superior officer was a non-Forest Officer, his CR should
be written by that officer superior to him. It further provided that the
order of this Court was not applicable to other Services viz., IAS and
Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as, “IPS”).
(iii) Legal Precedents
(a) State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General
of Police and Another
22. It will also be relevant to refer to some judgments and orders of
this Court.
23. An issue with regard to whether the provision empowering the
Home Secretary as the reporting authority for the purpose of writing
a Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as “CR”) in respect
of the Inspector General of Police arose for consideration before
this Court in the case of P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of
Police (supra). This Court had an occasion to consider clauses ‘e’,
‘f’ and ‘a’ of Rule 2 of the 1970 Rules. It will be relevant to refer to
paragraphs 8 and 11 of the said judgment, which read thus:
“8. Now the question is whether the State Government
can specifically empower any authority to be the reporting
authority of the Inspector General of Police under the
second part of clause (e). Apart from any legal provision,
it is just and proper that a reporting authority must
be a person to whom the member of the Service is
answerable for his performances. In other words, the
reporting authority should be a person higher in rank
than the member of the Service. Indeed, that is apparent
from the first part of clause (e). It is true that under
the second part of clause (e), there is no indication as
to the status and position of the authority who may
be specifically empowered by the Government as
the reporting authority, but from the point of view of
propriety and reasonableness and having regard to the
intention behind the rule which is manifest, such an
authority must be one superior in rank to the member
of the Service concerned. If that be not so, there will be
an apparent conflict between the first part and second
1466 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
part of clause (e). We are, therefore, of the view that
the State Government can specifically empower only
such authority as the reporting authority as is superior
in rank to the Inspector General of Police.
………………
11. In view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act read with
Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, the Inspector General
of Police, Haryana, is the head of the Police Department.
The immediate authority superior to the Inspector General
of Police is the Minister-in-Charge of the Police Department.
The only authority who could be specifically empowered as
the reporting authority in regard to the Inspector General
of Police under clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Rules is the
Minister-in-Charge and the Chief Minister, being superior
to the Minister-in-Charge, may be the reviewing authority
under clause (f) of Rule 2. In acting as the reporting
authority the Minister-in-Charge may be assisted by the
Home Secretary, but the confidential report relating to the
performances of the Inspector General of Police has to be
written by the Minister-in-Charge. The Minister-in-Charge
of the Police Department is supposed to be aware of the
performances of the Inspector General of Police. As the
Chief Minister is the reviewing authority, he will also
act as the accepting authority on the basis of the
principle as laid down under Rule 6-B of the Rules
providing that where the accepting authority writes
or reviews the confidential report of any member of
the Service, it shall not be further necessary to review
or accept any such report. In other words, the Chief
Minister will act both as the reviewing authority and
the accepting authority.
[Emphasis supplied]
24. It can thus be seen that this Court observed that apart from any legal
provision, it was just and proper that the “reporting authority” must be
a person to whom the member of the Service was answerable for his
performance. This Court observed that the “reporting authority” should
be a person higher in rank than the member of the Service. This Court
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1467
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
held that from the point of view of propriety and reasonableness and
in light of the manifest intention underlying the rule, the “reporting
authority” must be an individual holding a rank superior to that of
the Service member concerned. This Court particularly observed
that the State Government could empower only such authority as
the “reporting authority” which was superior in rank to the Inspector
General of Police (hereinafter referred to as, “IGP”). This Court
further observed that in view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act,
1861 read with Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the IGP,
Haryana, was the head of the Police Department. It observed that
the immediate authority superior to IGP was the Minister-in-Charge
of the Police Department. It observed that the only authority who
could be specifically empowered as the “reporting authority” in
regard to the IGP under clause (e) of Rule 2 of the said Rules was
the Minister-in-Charge and the Chief Minister, being superior to the
Minister-in-Charge, may be the “reviewing authority” under clause
(f) of Rule 2 of the said Rules. It further observed that in acting as
the “reporting authority” the Minister-in-Charge may be assisted
by the Home Secretary, but the confidential report relating to the
performance of the IGP has to be written by the Minister-in-Charge.
It further observed that the Chief Minister would act as the “reviewing
authority” as well as the “accepting authority” on the basis of the
principle as laid down under Rule 6-B of the said Rules providing that
where the “accepting authority” writes or reviews the C.Rs. of any
member of the Service, it shall not be further necessary to review
or accept any such report.
(b) Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh
25. It will further be relevant to note that an application being I.A.
No.424 of 1998 came to be filed before this Court in the present
proceedings with regard to the question as to who is the authority
competent to write the C.R. with regard to an officer belonging to
the Forest Department. It will be relevant to refer to the following
observations of this Court in the aforementioned I.A. vide order dated
22nd September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case):
“17. The question which arises for consideration is as
to who is the authority competent to write a confidential
report with regard to an officer belonging to the Forest
Department.
1468 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
18. The Indian Forest Service is one of the All-India
Services. The officers selected on the basis of an all-India
competitive examination, like the officers belonging to the
Indian Administrative Service, are then deployed in different
States. That becomes the cadre for them.
19. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, persons belonging to
the Indian Forest Service are also deployed, just as they are
deployed to other States. In the Forest Department in the
State, the lowest rung for a direct recruit belonging to the
Indian Forest Service is the post of Assistant Conservator
of Forests. Below the Assistant Conservator of Forests
are three levels starting with that of a Guard, Forester
and Range Forest Officer. These three lowest rungs are
manned by officers belonging to the State Forest Service.
Recruitment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests
is made partly by promotion from an officer belonging to
the State Forest Department (being a Range Forest Officer)
and partly, as already noticed, by direct recruitment to the
Indian Forest Service.
20. The hierarchy in the Indian Forest Service is that above
the Assistant Conservator of Forests is the Divisional
Forest Officer, thereafter on promotion a person becomes
Conservator of Forests, then Chief Conservator of Forests
followed by Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests and at the pinnacle of the pyramid is the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests.
21. The practice which has been adopted so far in the
State of Madhya Pradesh and possibly in some other
States also, is that the confidential reports of the officers
belonging to the Forest Department holding any of the
posts between that of a Guard and the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests is not written by the superiors within
the same service but is written by the officers belonging
to the office of the District Collector and superior officers
on the civil side.
22. For writing of the confidential reports, the Central
Government has, under Section 3 of the All India Services
Act, 1951, framed All India Services (Confidential Rolls)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1469
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
Rules, 1970. According to Rule 2(e), the “reporting
authority” is defined as follows:
“2. (e) ‘reporting authority’ means the authority
who was, during the period for which the
confidential report is written, immediately
superior to the member of the service and
such other authority as may be specifically
empowered in this behalf by the Government;”
23. The “reviewing authority” is defined in Rule 2(f) as
follows:
“2. (f) ‘reviewing authority’ means the authority
who was, during the period for which the
confidential report is written, immediately
superior to the reporting authority and such other
authority as may be specifically empowered in
this behalf by the Government;”
24. It seems that Rule 2(e) had been interpreted by the
State to mean that the confidential report of an officer could
be written by a person who is superior to him and also by
such other officer who may be specified in this behalf. In
view of the latter portion of the said Rule 2(e), the State
Government has authorised officers of service other than
of the Forest Department to write the confidential reports.
In this manner, in effect, the administrative control of
officers belonging to the Forest Department is not within
the Department itself.
25. The aforesaid Rule 2(e) came up for consideration
before this Court in State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa
[(1987) 2 SCC 602 : (1987) 3 ATC 690 : (1987) 2 SCR
1030] . While interpreting the said Rule 2(e), this Court
at p. 1035 observed as follows: (SCC pp. 606-07, para 5)
“5. In this connection, it may be pointed out
that it is not disputed that the conjunction ‘and’
occurring in clauses (e), (f) and (a) should be
read as ‘or’. Under clause (e), the ‘reporting
authority’ may be either immediately superior
to the member of the service or such other
1470 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
authority as may be specifically empowered in
this behalf by the Government. The expression
‘immediately superior’ obviously indicates that
the reporting authority should be the immediate
superior officer in the same service to which the
member of the service belongs. The position is
the same as in the cases of ‘reviewing authority’
and ‘accepting authority’. So, under the first
part of clause (e), the reporting authority of the
respondent could be a person who is immediately
superior to him in the police service.”
26. It appears to us, and which is logical, that up to
the officer of the rank of Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests the reporting authority has
to be the immediately superior officer within the
Forest Department. For example, for the Assistant
Conservator of Forests, the reporting authority can
only be the Divisional Forest Officer and for him
the reporting authority would be the Conservator
of Forests for whom the reporting authority has
to be the Chief Conservator of Forests and his
reporting authority would be Additional Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests and lastly his reporting
authority would be the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests. Likewise the reviewing authority would
also be the person within the same Department. It
is only in case of the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests that the reporting authority will be a person
other than the one belonging to the service because
there is no one superior to the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests within the service. As far as
he is concerned, the reporting authority would be a
person who is familiar with the work of Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and that will be the person
to whom he reports and who is superior to him in
rank and hierarchy.
27. We, therefore, direct the State of Madhya Pradesh
to pass appropriate orders enumerating the reporting
authorities in the manner indicated hereinabove.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1471
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
28. The Union of India is directed to bring to the notice of
the other States the ratio of this decision as well as the
decision in P.C. Wadhwa case [(1987) 2 SCC 602 : (1987)
3 ATC 690 : (1987) 2 SCR 1030] for issuing suitable orders
wherever necessary.”
[Emphasis supplied]
26. It can thus be seen from the aforesaid observations that this Court
in detail had considered the hierarchy in IFS. This Court noted the
practice in the State of Madhya Pradesh that the C.Rs. of the officers
belonging to the Forest Department holding any of the posts between
that of a Guard and the PCCF were not written by the superiors
within the same service but were written by the officers belonging
to the office of the District Collector and superior officers on the civil
side. After considering the definitions of “reporting authority” and
“reviewing authority” as contained in the 1970 Rules and the judgment
of this Court in the case of P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General
of Police (supra), this Court reiterated that up to the officer of the
rank of APCCF, the “reporting authority” has to be the immediately
superior officer within the Forest Department. This Court has given the
entire illustration in paragraph 26 as to who would be the “reporting
authority” and the “reviewing authority” in respect of an officer.
(iv) Order of this Court in I.A. No.776 of 2002 in the present
proceedings
27. It is further relevant to note that the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the
present proceedings, had also filed an application being I.A. No.776
of 2002 seeking modification/clarification of the order of this Court
dated 22nd September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case). It will be relevant
to refer to the prayers made in the said I.A., which read thus:
“(i) Modify/clarify the order dated 22.09.2000 that the
Reporting Authority and Reviewing Authority up to the
rank of Additional Chief Conservator of Forests should be
immediately superior officer as per amended provisions
of Rule 2 (a), 2 (e) and 2(f) All India Service (Confidential
Rolls) Rules, 1970.
(ii) The amended provisions of the All-India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. In Section 2 (e), 2(f) and
2(a) be given full effect to in its letter and spirit.”
1472 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
28. This Court, vide order dated 1 st August 2003 passed in the
present proceedings, directed the Central Empowered Committee
(hereinafter referred to as, “CEC”) to examine the issue and submit
a report.
29. The CEC, accordingly, submitted its report on 22nd January 2004.
It will be relevant to refer to the following extract of the said report:
“(i) In all the States and Union Territories except the State
of Madhya Pradesh, the CR’s of the Assistant Conservator
of Forests, the Divisional Forest Officer and the Conservator
of Forests working in the Forest Department are written
by their immediate superiors in the Forest Department i.e.
the Divisional Forest Officer, the Conservator of Forests
and the Chief Conservator of Forests respectively. In the
State of Madhya Pradesh the CR’s of these Forest Officers
were being written by their counterparts in the Revenue
Department i.e. Assistant Collector, District Collector and
Divisional Commissioner,
(ii) the primary responsibility of the forest officers working
in the field is forest protection, wildlife management,
implementation of FC Act, Indian Forest Act, Wildlife
(Protection) Act, preparation and Implementation of
Working Plans and other forestry activities. These officers
work under the direct supervision and administrative control
of their superior forest officers. It is, therefore, logical that
their CR’s are written by their superior officers in the Forest
Department and not by their counterparts in the Revenue
Department;
(iii) though the forest officers may be involved in
implementation of various welfare and development
schemes of the State Government, this should not normally
become their primary responsibility;
(iv) in view of above, the system of writing of CR’s of the
Forest Officers working in the field by their counterparts
in the Revenue Department may not be appropriate. If
required, a report about the performance of the Forest
Officer (s) in implementation of the welfare schemes may be
sent by the Assistant Collector, Collector or the Divisional
Commissioner to the designated Reporting Officer (s),
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1473
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
which could be taken into consideration by the Reporting
Officer (s) while writing the CR(s);
(v) the CR should normally be written by the officer of
higher rank and pay scale. In exceptional cases it may
be allowed to be written by the officer in the same pay
scale provided he is senior. It should never be allowed
to be written by an officer of a lower rank or who is in a
lower pay scale. There are many Divisional Forest Officers
who are in a higher pay scale and/or of higher seniority
vis-à-vis the District Collectors;
(vi) Rule 2(e), 2(f) and 2(a) of the All India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 as amended on 8.12.1987
deal with the “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and
“accepting authority”. respectively. As per the amended
rules, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority
shall be the authority supervising the performance of the
reporting authority and reviewing authority, respectively.
Since the Divisional Commissioner is the supervising
authority for the District Collectors and Revenue Secretary
is the supervising authority for the Divisional Commissioner,
if a District Collector is designated as the reporting authority
for the DFO, the Divisional Commissioner and the Revenue
Secretary will be the Reviewing Officer and Accepting
Officer, respectively. Under these circumstances none of
the officers working in the Forest Department would be
involved at any level in assessing the performance of the
Divisional Forest Officer;
(vii) in view of above the practice of designating the District
Collector as the reporting authority and the Conservator
of Forests as the reviewing authority for writing the CR
of the DFO was not in consonance with the amended CR
rules. Similar situation existed for other field officers of the
Forest Department;
(viii) the amendments made in the All India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 on 8.12.1987 resulted in
nullifying the Hon’ble Court’s judgment dated 16.4.1987
delivered in State of Haryana vs. Shri P.C. Wadhwa,
IPS, Inspector General of Police & Anr., 1987 (2) SCR
1474 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1030.. The amendment to the said rules was not made to
cure any defect in pursuant to any order of this Hon’ble
Court’s. The amended rules permit the Government to
designate an officer in a lower pay scale or rank to write
the CR of another officer in higher pay scale or rank
from the same service or another service, which is not
appropriate. Although there may be situations in which
the reporting officer, reviewing officer or the accepting
officer are from different services or departments, it is
necessary that the reporting officer should be in a higher
pay scale than the officer reported upon. Similarly the
reviewing officer and the accepting officer should normally
be in a higher-pay scale and rank and in no case in a
lower pay scale or rank than the reporting officer and
the reviewing officer,
(ix) the amended rules could have been brought to the
notice of this Hon’ble Court by the applicant during the
hearing which was not done. In any case the Hon’ble
Court’s order is not contrary to or inconsistent with the
amended rules;
(x) the Committee agrees with the views of the DOPT that
the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 22.9.2000 was issued in a
particular context and should not be generalised to cover
other services. Similarly, it also agrees with the contention
of the DOPT that if the Forest Officer is working in the
Secretariat or other departments where his immediate
supervising officer is a non-forest officer, his CR should
be written by such an officer;”
30. After considering the aforesaid report of the CEC, this Court passed
an order in the present proceedings on 19th April 2004, extract of
which reads thus:
“Despite the order of this Court the State of Madhya
Pradesh has not filed its response. We are in agreement
with the recommendations of the CEC. IA No.776 in IA
No.424 is accordingly dismissed. It appears that several
States are not following the recommendations of the CEC
and the Order dated 22.9.2000. We, therefore direct that
since the matter has already been decided all the States
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1475
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
including the State of Chhattisgarh shall abide by the order
dated 22.9.2000. I.A.No.1035 is disposed of”
31. It can thus be seen that this Court has reiterated that all the States
shall abide by the order passed in the present proceedings by a
3-Judges Bench of this Court dated 22nd September 2000 (Santosh
Bharti case).
(v) Recent judgment of this Court in State of Assam and
Others v. Binod Kumar and Others
32. Recently, this Court in the case of State of Assam and Others v.
Binod Kumar and Others4 had an occasion to consider a similar
controversy with regard to who shall be the “reporting authority” or
recording of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter
referred to as, “APAR”) of the officers belonging to the IPS. This
Court also had an occasion to consider the 1970 Rules as amended
in 1987 and also the 2007 Rules. It will be relevant to refer to the
following paragraphs of the said judgment:
“21. The definition of “reporting authority” in the 1970
Rules, post 1987, and in the 2007 Rules, did away with the
mandate of having the “immediate superior” of the officer
reported upon undertaking that exercise but it still requires
the “reporting authority” to be someone who supervises the
performance of the said officer. Ordinarily, such supervision
would be by an officer from within the same department,
who is higher in rank than the officer reported upon. The
Government was, no doubt, given discretion to empower
any of the authorities who supervise the performance of the
officer reported upon to assume such role. This discretion,
however, cannot be construed to mean that someone from
outside the department can be given such power, in the light
of the “reviewing authority” being defined as someone who
supervises the performance of such “reporting authority”.
This clearly implies that both authorities must belong to
the same service or department. In effect, Rule 63(iii) of
the Manual does not fit in with the scheme obtaining under
the 1970 Rules and the 2007 Rules.
4 (2024) 3 SCC 611
1476 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
30. In this regard, we may also note that, in SBI v. Kashinath
Kher [SBI v. Kashinath Kher, (1996) 8 SCC 762 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 1117] , this Court held that officers reporting upon
performance must show objectivity, impartiality and fair
assessment, without any prejudices whatsoever, and the
highest sense of responsibility so as to inculcate devotion
to duty, honesty and integrity. It was further observed that
as officers may get demoralised by negative ACRs, which
would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public
service, such ACRs should be written by a superior officer
of high rank. Earlier, in State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa
[State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, (1987) 2 SCC 602] ,
this Court considered whether the State Government could
empower any authority to be the “reporting authority” of
the Inspector General of Police under Rule 2(e) of the
1970 Rules. It was observed that, from the point of view
of propriety and reasonableness and having regard to
the intention behind the Rule, which is manifest, such
an authority must be one superior in rank to the member
of the service concerned. No doubt, these observations
were made in the context of the unamended Rule 2(e) of
the 1970 Rules, but the principle culled out is sound and
still holds good.”
33. This Court in the aforesaid judgment recorded that though the
Government had been given discretion to empower any of the
authorities who supervise the performance of the officer reported
upon to assume such role, such a discretion could not be construed
to mean that someone from outside the department could be given
such power, in the light of the “reviewing authority” being defined
as someone who supervises the performance of such “reporting
authority”. It clearly implied that both authorities must belong to
the same service or department. This Court reiterated the position
as held by this Court in the case of P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector
General of Police (supra).
(vi) Impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2024
34. It appears that, while other States were adhering to the practice
wherein the “reporting authority” and the “reviewing authority”
belonged to the same service, with the “reporting authority” being
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1477
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
immediately superior to the officer being reported upon, and the
“reviewing authority” being the authority supervising the performance
of the “reporting authority”, the State of Madhya Pradesh was not
following this established practice. The practice of ACRs of the
IFS officers being recorded by the officers from the IAS i.e., the
District Collectors and superior officers was followed in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. This practice was specifically challenged in the
present proceedings by way of an application and it was found that
the said practice as followed by the State of Madhya Pradesh was
not correct. This Court specifically in its order dated 22nd September
2000 observed that insofar as Assistant Conservator of Forests are
concerned, the “reporting authority” could only be the DFO and for
DFO, the “reporting authority” would be the Conservator of Forests.
This Court further observed that for the Conservator of Forests, the
“reporting authority” has to be the CCFs and for CCFs, the “reporting
authority” would be APCCF and for APCCF, the “reporting authority”
would be the PCCF. This Court observed that up to the APCCF,
the “reporting authority” and the “reviewing authority” would be the
person within the same department. This Court observed that it was
only in the case of PCCF that the “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. This Court
observed that in such a case, the “reporting authority” would be a
person who was familiar with the work of PCCF and that would be
the person to whom he reported and who was superior to him in
rank and hierarchy.
35. It can further be seen that in view of the order passed by this Court
in the present proceedings dated 22nd September 2000, MoEF issued
specific directions to the various State Governments.
36. It is to be noted that the State of Madhya Pradesh had also filed an
application being I.A. No.776 of 2002 in the present proceedings
for modification of the aforesaid directions of this Court. This Court
directed the CEC to submit its report. The CEC accordingly submitted
its report on 22nd April 2004. This Court, vide order dated 19th April
2004, expressed its agreement with the said report of the CEC and
recorded that several States including the State of Madhya Pradesh
were not following the recommendations made by the CEC in its
report and the directions of this Court issued vide order dated 22nd
September 2000 in the present proceedings. This Court therefore
1478 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
reiterated its said order dated 22nd September 2000 and directed all
the State Governments to follow the same.
37. The legal position as approved by this Court in two separate orders
of this Court and as rightly understood by the MoEF as could be
seen from its letter dated 8th November 2001 is that insofar as
writing of ACRs up to the rank of APCCF is concerned, the “reporting
authority” should be the immediate superior authority in the Forest
Department. The position is clear as regards “reviewing authority” or
“reporting authority” in relation to officers up to the rank of APCCF.
It is clear that except the PCCF, the “reporting authority” has to be
a superior officer from the IFS. It is only with regard to PCCF that
the “reporting authority” would be a person to whom he reports and
who is superior to him in rank. No doubt that, if necessary, the State
Governments can provide that the Collectors and Commissioners can
record their comments on a separate sheet about the performance
of the IFS officers in relation to the implementation of developmental
work funded by the district administration. However, the same is
again required to be considered by a superior departmental officer
of the IFS.
38. It is further to be noted that even the DoPT has also issued an
O.M. dated 2nd September 2004 informing all the States about the
order passed by this Court in the present proceedings dated 22nd
September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case) and the instructions issued
by MoEF vide its letter dated 8th November 2001. However, the DoPT
clarified that the said order passed by this Court on 22nd September
2000 would not be applicable to the forest officers who are working
in a separate department where his immediate superior officer is a
non-forest officer.
39. We are of the considered view that the G.O. dated 29th June 2024 is
totally in violation of the specific directions issued by this Court vide
its orders dated 22nd September 2000 in the present proceedings
(Santosh Bharti case) and 19th April 2024. Perusal of the table
annexed at Annexure-8 with the compilation of the learned amicus
curiae would reveal that except the State of Madhya Pradesh, all
the other States are scrupulously adhering to the directions issued
by this Court in the aforesaid orders. We have no hesitation to hold
that the impugned G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature inasmuch
as the said G.O. which is in violation of the aforesaid orders of this
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1479
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers
of the Indian Forest Service
Court dated 22nd September 2000 and 19th April 2024 has been
issued without even seeking clarification/modification of this Court.
We could have very well proceeded to initiate contempt proceedings
against the officers responsible for issuance of such G.O. However,
we refrain ourselves from doing so. The said G.O. being in violation
of the directions of this Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.
IV. DIRECTIONS
40. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the present applications.
41. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The present applications are allowed;
(ii) The impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2004 is held to be in violation
of the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings
dated 22nd September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case) which is
reiterated and is consequently quashed and set aside;
(iii) The State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to reframe the rules
by strictly adhering to the directions issued by this Court vide
order dated 22nd September 2000 in the present proceedings
(Santosh Bharti case) which has been clarified by the MoEF
in its letter dated 8th November 2001 and also clarified by the
DoPT vide its letter dated 2nd September 2004; and
(iv) The same shall be done within a period of one month from the
date of this judgment.
42. We place on record our appreciation for the efforts put in by Shri
K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae for extending support and
suggestion and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General for
taking a fair stand on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Result of the case: Applications allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search