STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERSversusBINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS

                  [2024] 1 S.C.R. 473 : 2024 INSC 44

                    The State of Assam and Others
                                       v.
                        Binod Kumar and Others
                       (Civil Appeal No. 1933 of 2023)
                               18 January 2024
             [Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual, which dates back to a
       point of time when the Police Act, 1861, was in force, can be said
       to be still valid and lawful in the framework of the Assam Police
       Act, 2007 and the 2007 Rules relating to preparation of ACRs/
       APARs of IPS Officers in the rank of Superintendents of Police .

                                  Headnotes
       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
* Author
474                                                               [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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]

                                 Case Law Cited
            Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited vs. Union of
            India and others [2019] 6 SCR 307:(2019) 5 SCC
            480; Kanai Lal Sur vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan [1958]
            SCR 360:AIR 1957 SC 907; S. Gopal Reddy vs. State
            of A.P. [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 439:(1996) 4 SCC 596;
            Sultana Begum vs. Prem Chand Jain [1996] 9 Suppl.
            SCR 707:(1997) 1 SCC 373; State Bank of India and
            others vs. Kashinath Kher and others (1996) 8 SCC
            762 – referred to.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                            475

      The State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others


           State of Haryana vs. P.C.Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector
           General of Police and another [1987] 2 SCR 1030:(1987)
           2 SCC 602 – relied on.

                       Books and Periodicals Cited

           Sir Rupert Cross. ‘Statutory Interpretation 3rd Edition,
           1995 – referred to.

                                List of Acts

     Assam Police Manual; Assam Police Act, 2007; All India Services
     (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970; All India Services (Performance
     Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007; Police Act, 1861.

                             List of Keywords

     Reporting Authority; Annual Confidential Reports; Annual
     Performance Appraisal Reports; Indian Police Service; District
     Superintendents of Police; Deputy Commissioner; All India
     Service; Reviewing Authority; Accepting Authority; Deputy Inspector
     General of Police; Inconsistency; System of governance; Criminal
     and police administration; Hierarchical superiority; Separation
     of powers; Castigate; Parity; Policy making; Harmonious
     construction; Objectivity; Impartiality; Fair assessment; Propriety;
     Reasonableness; Law and Order; Internal organisation.

                            Case Arising From

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1933 of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2017 of the High Court
     of Gauhati in WPC No.4752 of 2015.
                         Appearances for Parties

     Nalin Kohli, Sr. A.A.G., R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Shuvodeep
     Roy, Ms. Nimisha Menon, Sarthak Sharma, Ayushman Arora, Advs.
     for the Appellants.
     Aman Lekhi, L.Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Advs., Somanadri Goud Katam,
     Ujjwal Sinha, Vijay Pal, Ms. Namrata Trivedi, Sirajuddin, Aniket Seth,
     Ms. Snehil Sonam, Ritwiz Rishabh, Advs. for the Respondents.
476                                                             [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                     Judgment
       Sanjay Kumar, J
1.     By judgment dated 05.12.2017, the Gauhati High Court allowed
       W.P(C). No.4752 of 2015 and held Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police
       Manual invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with Section
       14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007. This judgment is called
       in question by the State of Assam and its officials in the Home
       Department.
2.     While ordering notice on 07.01.2019, this Court directed that no
       coercive steps should be taken against the appellants on the basis
       of the impugned judgment. On 21.03.2023, this Court issued notice
       to the learned Attorney General for India, being of the opinion that
       his presence was necessary for effective adjudication of this appeal.
3.     The core controversy in this case is as to who should be the
       ‘Reporting Authority’ 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. More particularly, the issue is whether
       Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual (for brevity, ‘the Manual’),
       which prescribes that such assessment should be initiated by the
       Deputy Commissioner concerned, as the ‘Reporting Authority’, is
       lawful. The specific ground successfully urged before the High Court
       by the respondents herein, viz., IPS Officers working as SPs in the
       State of Assam, is that this Rule is violative of Section 14(2) of the
       Assam Police Act, 2007, (for brevity, ‘the Act of 2007’).
4.     It would be apposite at this stage to note the tone and tenor of the
       relevant statutory provisions. Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, in the context
       of initiation of the ACR/APAR of a SP of a district, reads as follows:
            ‘(iii) Superintendent of Police - the report should be initiated
            by Deputy Commissioner, reviewed by the Deputy Inspector
            General of Police i/c Range and sent to the Commissioner
            of Division. The Commissioner of Division will send the
            same with his opinion to the Inspector General of Police
            for acceptance.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                             477

      The State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others


           The Inspector General of Police shall refer the report to
           the Deputy Inspector General of Police, S.B., for recording
           his remarks regarding performance of the Superintendent
           of Police of the District in subjects pertaining to the S.B.’
     Section 14 of the Act of 2007 reads thus:
           ‘14. Relationship of Superintendent of Police with District
           Magistrates -
           (1)   The administration of the Police throughout the
                 local jurisdiction of the Magistrate is vested in the
                 Superintendent of Police under the general control
                 and direction of the Deputy Commissioner as District
                 Magistrate. The latter is responsible for keeping peace
                 and maintenance of law and order in a district and may
                 employ the police as he thinks best for the purpose.
           (2)   The Deputy Commissioner as District (sic.) Magistrate
                 has however, no authority to interfere in the internal
                 organization and discipline of the Police force, but it
                 is his duty to bring to the notice of the Superintendent
                 of Police, all cases in which the conduct of and
                 qualification of Police Officer affect the general
                 administration of a district.’
5.   As IPS Officers belong to an ‘All India Service’, it would be pertinent
     to note the provisions of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls)
     Rules, 1970 (for brevity, ‘the 1970 Rules’), which were thereafter
     replaced by the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report)
     Rules, 2007 (for brevity, ‘the 2007 Rules’), in the context of the
     mode and method of preparation of ACRs/APARs of IPS Officers in
     the rank of SPs. Rules 2(e), 2(f) and 2(a) of the 1970 Rules defined
     ‘Reporting Authority’, ‘Reviewing Authority’ and ‘Accepting Authority’
     respectively, apropos preparation of ACRs/APARs. These Rules
     read as under: -
           ‘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;
478                                                            [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            2(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;
            2(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.’
       Rule 2(e) above was thereafter amended, vide Notification No.
       22012/4/87-AIS-III dated 08.12.1987, and from that date it read thus: -
            ‘2(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.’
6.     The 1970 Rules continued to govern the field till the advent of the
       2007 Rules. Rules 2(j), 2(k) and 2(a) of the 2007 Rules define
       ‘Reporting Authority’, ‘Reviewing Authority’ and ‘Accepting Authority’
       respectively. These Rules read as under: -
            ‘2(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.
            2(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.
            2(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.’
7.     Hitherto, the Police Act, 1861, was applicable in the State of Assam
       and the Assam Police Manual originated from it. However, upon the Act
       of 2007 being brought into force, the Police Act, 1861, was repealed
       in so far as its application to the State of Assam was concerned.
       The question presently is whether Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, which
       dates back to a point of time when the Police Act, 1861, was in force,
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                          479

      The State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others


     can be said to be still valid and lawful in the framework of the Act
     of 2007 and the 2007 Rules relating to preparation of ACRs/APARs
     of IPS Officers in the rank of SPs.
8.   As per Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, the ACR/APAR of a SP should be
     initiated by the Deputy Commissioner concerned and the same would
     be reviewed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in charge of
     the Range and then sent to the Commissioner of the Division. The
     Commissioner would then send the same with his opinion to the
     Inspector General of Police for acceptance who, in turn, would refer
     the report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Special Branch)
     for his remarks on the SP’s performance in subjects pertaining to
     that Branch.
9.   It is the contention of the appellants that a government servant has
     no right, much less a legal right, to insist that his/her ACR/APAR
     ought to be initiated by a particular ‘Reporting Authority’. It is argued
     that there is no inconsistency in Rule 63(iii) when compared with
     the scheme of the Act of 2007 and the 1970 Rules/2007 Rules.
     Reliance is placed upon the 2007 Rules and the 1987 amendment
     of Rule 2(e) of the 1970 Rules, to contend that it is not necessary
     that a ‘Reporting Authority’ should be the immediate superior of the
     member of the service whose ACR/APAR is being prepared and
     it is sufficient if the authority supervises his/her performance. It is
     contended that, as Section 14(1) of the Act of 2007 vests the Deputy
     Commissioner/District Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the
     Deputy Commissioner) with control over the functioning of the SP
     of that district, the Deputy Commissioner would be the most suitable
     person to report upon the performance of that SP. The appellants
     would point out that the SP works under the control and direction
     of the Deputy Commissioner, who has the overall responsibility of
     keeping peace and maintaining law and order in the district and who
     is empowered to employ the police force within the district as he/
     she thinks best for that purpose.
10. On the other hand, the respondents would point out that Section 14(2)
    of the Act of 2007 makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner cannot
    interfere with the internal organization or discipline within the police
    force in the district and can only inform the SP if the conduct and/or
    qualification of a police officer affects the general administration of
    the district. They contend that the archaic Rule 63(iii) of the Manual
    is not compatible with the scheme obtaining under the Act of 2007
480                                                          [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       and the 2007 Rules and that the Gauhati High Court was well justified
       in holding to that effect and invalidating it.
11. At the outset, we may note that the system of governance obtaining
    under the Police Act, 1861, was altogether different from what it is
    now. At that time, the Deputy Commissioner exercised far wider
    powers, being the head of the criminal and police administration in
    the district. In such circumstances, it was proper that he/she should
    be vested with the power of assessing the performance of the SP of
    that district. Rule 63 of the Manual also makes this clear as it speaks
    of the recording officers being fully conversant with the quality of
    the work of the ‘officers working under them’ and goes on to say
    that the intention is that the work of an officer should be known to
    all his ‘superiors’ along the line. The hierarchical superiority of the
    Deputy Commissioner over the SP in that setup is, therefore, clear.
12. However, after the separation of powers in terms of the regime now
    prevailing, the Deputy Commissioner is no longer the head of criminal
    and police administration in the district. Presently, Section 14(1) of
    the Act of 2007 provides that the administration of the police within
    the district vests in the SP of that district and Section 14(2) of the
    Act of 2007 makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner would
    not have the power to interfere with the internal organization of the
    police in the district or with discipline within the police force. Notably,
    Rule 25(c) of the Manual empowered the Deputy Commissioner to
    order an enquiry in case of misconduct by a police officer, in direct
    variance with Section 14(2) of the Act of 2007 which unequivocally
    divests the Deputy Commissioner of such disciplinary power. This
    distinction, which was brought about in the administration of the police,
    must necessarily be kept in mind while considering the validity of the
    procedure prescribed under Rule 63(iii) of the Manual. As pointed out
    by Sir Rupert Cross in his ‘Statutory Interpretation (3rd Edition,
    1995), a statutory provision has to be considered first and foremost
    as a norm of the current legal system whence it takes force, as it
    has a legal existence independent of the historical contingencies of
    its promulgation and should be interpreted in the light of its place
    within the system of legal norms currently in force. These observations
    were quoted with approval by this Court in Dharani Sugars and
    Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India and others1.


1   (2019) 5 SCC 480
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                         481

      The State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others


13. That apart, one must also keep in mind that IPS Officers, being
    members of an All India Service, would be amenable to the 2007
    Rules. Section 65 of the Act of 2007 makes it clear that police
    personnel in the State of Assam shall be governed by the existing
    Discipline and Appeal Rules and other Service Conduct Rules in
    force, as applicable to the Indian Police Service, State Police Service
    and others serving in the State Police Establishment. Therefore,
    merely because they are deployed/deputed to work in the State of
    Assam, IPS Officers cannot be denied the benefit of the 2007 Rules
    which would be applicable across the board to their ilk serving all
    over the country. It would, therefore, be incorrect to castigate such
    IPS Officers as insisting upon a ‘Reporting Authority’ of their choice.
    They are merely seeking parity with their kind working in other parts
    of the country. It is in this context that the extant 2007 Rules would
    have a direct impact on the issue under consideration.
14. The sheet anchor of the appellants’ case is the that the definition of
    “Reporting Authority’ in the 1970 Rules, post the 1987 amendment,
    and in the 2007 Rules does not require such authority to be
    ‘immediately superior’ to the officer being reported upon. Further, it
    is argued that, thereunder, the Government has been vested with
    the discretion of empowering any of the supervising authorities as
    the ‘Reporting Authority’ and the same would fall in the realm of
    policy-making. Trite to state, such discretion must be exercised
    judiciously and the resultant policy must necessarily fall within the
    four corners of the statutory scheme. The further argument that,
    as the designated reviewing and accepting authorities are senior
    officers in the police hierarchy, it would not make a difference if the
    ‘Reporting Authority’ is not from that department, needs mention only
    to be rejected. Each cog in the assessment process has its own
    role to play and this is clearly spelt out by Rule 63 of the Manual
    itself, which stipulates that inability or failure to report properly and
    objectively would be construed as a failure of the recording/reviewing
    officer and commented upon as such by the next level. On the same
    lines, Instruction 5 of the Instructions appended to Form I in the 1970
    Rules, titled ‘Confidential Report for Indian Police Service Officers’,
    stipulates that if the ‘Reviewing Authority’ finds that the ‘Reporting
    Authority’ made the report without due care and attention, he shall
    record a remark to that effect and the same shall be entered in his
    Confidential Roll.
482                                                         [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


15. Significantly, though a ‘Reporting Authority’, as defined, is required to
    be someone who supervises the performance of the officer reported
    upon and not necessarily his/her immediate superior, there was no
    change in the definition of ‘Reviewing Authority’. Be it noted that the
    1970 Rules and the 2007 Rules both define ‘Reviewing Authority’
    to mean the authority or authorities supervising the performance of
    the ‘Reporting Authority’, as may be specifically empowered in this
    behalf by the Government. It is in the backdrop of this definition of
    ‘Reviewing Authority’, that Rule 63(iii) of the Manual needs to be
    examined. Notably, a Deputy Commissioner, being the ‘Reporting
    Authority’ thereunder, would be altogether independent of the police
    department, being either an IAS Officer or a State Civil Service
    Officer. Needles to state, performance of a Deputy Commissioner
    would not be assessed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
    the designated ‘Reviewing Authority’ under Rule 63(iii), but by his/
    her own superior in the Administrative Service. There is, thus, a clear
    departure from the 1970 Rules/2007 Rules.
16. 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.
17. The learned Attorney General would suggest that this definition
    be given a restricted meaning to the effect that the ‘Reviewing
    Authority’, i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, would
    supervise the performance of the ‘Reporting Authority’, viz., the
    Deputy Commissioner, only to the extent of how he/she assessed
    the performance of the SP and no more. However, we are of
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                         483

       The State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others


     the opinion that such a construction does not flow from the plain
     language of the definition and would require something more to be
     read into it than was intended. Reference may be made to Kanai
     Lal Sur vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan2, wherein this Court observed
     that the words used in a statute must be interpreted in their plain
     grammatical meaning and it is only when they are capable of two
     constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object
     of the legislation can legitimately arise.
18. Further, reading down the meaning of the definition would have
    unintended consequences, fully divorced from the unambiguous
    words used therein, whereby ‘Reviewing Authority’ is defined to mean
    that such an authority must be one who supervises the performance
    of the ‘Reporting Authority’ in all respects and not in relation to one
    function alone.
19. Pertinently, there is no discernible conflict or contradiction between
    the definitions of ‘Reporting Authority’ and ‘Reviewing Authority’
    in the 1970 Rules, post 1987, and in the 2007 Rules. The clear
    import of these definitions is that such authorities must be from
    within the same service or department. Invocation of the doctrine of
    harmonious construction vis-à-vis these definitions, therefore, does
    not arise. Given the clear intent of the 1970 Rules/2007 Rules that
    the reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities should be from
    within the same service or department, the question is whether
    breach of such requirement can be permitted in the State of Assam
    under Rule 63(iii) of the Manual.
20. In this milieu, Section 14(2) of the Act of 2007 assumes relevance.
    Section 14(1) of the Act of 2007 states that administration of the
    police within the local jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner is
    vested in the SP, under the general control and direction of such
    Deputy Commissioner, but Section 14(2) makes it clear that the
    Deputy Commissioner has no authority to interfere with the internal
    organization and discipline of the police force. This sub-section
    further states that it would be within the power and duty of the
    Deputy Commissioner to bring to the notice of the SP all such
    cases in which the conduct of and/or qualification of a police officer


2   AIR 1957 SC 907
484                                                          [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       affects the general administration within the district and no more.
       On a plain reading, Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of the Act of
       2007 appear to be in derogation of each other, inasmuch as Section
       14(1) vests the Deputy Commissioner with control over the SP but
       Section 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 under Section 14(1), by duly carving
       out what has been excepted under Section 14(2). Such harmonious
       construction would be necessary to give effect to both provisions,
       so that they operate without conflict and a head-on collision (See
       S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P.3 and Sultana Begum vs. Prem
       Chand Jain4).
21. We may note that even as per the Manual, a SP is not made
    subservient to a Deputy Commissioner. Rule 25 of the Manual
    demonstrates this. It provides that though the SP is required to obey
    the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner in the first instance,
    the SP can thereafter request the Deputy Commissioner to refer
    any difference of opinion between them on any question relating to
    police administration to the Commissioner, who would decide such
    reference. Moreover, the SP is at liberty to submit his case to the
    Inspector General of Police if he is dissatisfied with the decision of
    the Commissioner. It is, thus, clear that a SP is required to work
    under the ‘general control and direction’ of a Deputy Commissioner
    and obey his/her instructions but that does not place the SP under
    the hierarchical supremacy of that Deputy Commissioner.
22. Further, when liberty has been given to the SP to disagree with the
    Deputy Commissioner on any point relating to police administration
    and seek resolution of such difference of opinion through the
    Commissioner and, thereafter, the Inspector General of Police, it
    would be a parody to subject the performance assessment of such
    a SP to the same Deputy Commissioner with whom he/she had
    disagreed. Such an ACR/APAR cannot be taken to be impartial and


3   (1996) 4 SCC 596
4   (1997) 1 SCC 373
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                        485

       The State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others


     objective, once it is preceded by a difference of opinion between
     the SP and the Deputy Commissioner, leading to a reference being
     made to higher authorities. Such a situation must necessarily be
     avoided to maintain the sanctity of the assessment process. This
     constitutes one more reason why the Deputy Commissioner should
     not be the ‘Reporting Authority’ of the SP of that district.
23. Significantly, Circular No. 11059/4/89-AIS.III, dated 28.12.1990,
    issued by the Government of India in exercise of power under Rules
    3 and 10A of the 1970 Rules, stipulated that the ‘Reporting Authority’
    should be in a higher grade of pay than the officer reported upon. The
    Government noted that there were instances where the ACRs of the
    members of All India Services were initiated by officers belonging to
    the same batch or drawing the same pay scale as the officer reported
    upon and instructed that the 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. It is,
    therefore, clear that the ‘Reporting Authority’ must necessarily be in
    a higher grade of pay than the officer who is being reported upon.
    It may be noticed that Rule 11 of the 2007 Rules empowers the
    Central Government to issue instructions with regard to the writing
    of the Performance Appraisal Report. However, no new instruction
    or circular has been issued in exercise of power thereunder, contrary
    to the earlier Circular dated 28.12.1990. However, instances have
    been cited by the respondents where ACRs/APARs of the SPs in
    the State of Assam were initiated by Deputy Commissioners who
    were not in a higher grade of pay.
24. In this regard, we may also note that, in State Bank of India and
    others vs. Kashinath Kher and others5, 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 demoralized 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


5   (1996) 8 SCC 762
486                                                         [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       vs. P.C.Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and another6,
       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.
25. The appellants would argue that the Deputy Commissioner is the
    most suitable person to assess the performance of the SP, as he
    works under his control and direction, but we are not impressed.
    Form I in Appendix II to the 2007 Rules pertains to performance
    appraisal of all IPS Officers upto the level of Inspector General of
    Police, which would include SPs. Clause 6 in Rule 3 thereof, relating
    to appraisal by the ‘Reporting Authority’, provides various domain
    assignments wherefrom the ‘Reporting Authority’ is required to select
    any four. ‘Law and Order’ is only one of the twenty named domains,
    which would come within the purview of the Deputy Commissioner
    and the remaining nineteen would not be within his/her purview and
    supervision. Seized of only one of the twenty domains, the Deputy
    Commissioner would not even be competent to assess the overall
    performance of the SP.
26. On the above analysis and given the fact that the 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
    Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, cannot be countenanced, 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 Section 14(2) of
    the Act of 2007.



6   (1987) 2 SCC 602
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                           487

      The State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others


27. We, therefore, find no grounds to disagree with the conclusion arrived
    at by the Gauhati High Court, holding to that effect.
     The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
     Applications for permission to file additional documents are allowed.
     Other pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
     Before parting with the case, we place on record our appreciation
     and gratitude to Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General,
     for his erudite and able assistance.
     Parties shall bear their own costs.


     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain    Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.