Alld High Court · 2025

Allahabad High Court, who has disagreed with the aforesaid reporting and recorded an adverse entry to the ACR of the petitioner. A perusal of adverse entry would itself reveal that the petitioner is a member of the Service Union of the employees of the High Court and in his capacity, he has taken part in various agitations and has raised various grievances of the Union before the authorities. As per the aforesaid remarks, the petitioner was not regularly attending his duties and was more involved in the work of Union. Due to which, the work has suffered on numerous occasions and additional hands had to be deployed in place of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the adverse remarks as well as the order of rejection, has submitted that the adverse remarks endorsed by the Senior Registrar were without jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Section Officer and his immediate superior was the Assistant Registrar, who was the reporting authority and Deputy Registrar would be the reviewing authority and the file should not have been placed before the Senior Registrar inasmuch, as per the practice followed by the Allahabad High Court, the Registrar General is the accepting authority for all the employees of the High Court and accordingly remarks endorsed by the Senior Registrar are without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be set Aside.

6. It was further submitted that the services of the petitioner are governed by Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of 2 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1976”), from a bare perusal of Rule 40, it would be clear that in absence of any rules made by the High Court for the purpose of recording of adverse remarks, the Government orders pertaining to coordinate employees of the State Government would apply to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that in this regard, the Government order dated 21.05.1976 provides for a detailed procedure for recording of the ACR. In the said rules, it is provided that ACR shall be initiated by the officer immediately superior to the reporting authority and the said remark would be reviewed by the officer immediately higher to the reporting authority and the next immediate higher authority would be the accepting authority. In this regard, it was submitted that the Assistant Registrar would be the reporting officer, while the Deputy Registrar would be the reviewing officer. There would not have been any difficulty in appreciating and deciding the present controversy inasmuch as, if the Senior Registrar had been the accepting authority as per the Government order dated 21.05.1976, he could have endorsed the adverse entry against the petitioner in his capacity as the accepting authority. In the instant case, the Senior Registrar has acted in the present case as a reviewing authority rather than accepting authority while the Registrar General has accepted the remarks of the Senior Registrar.

7. Shri Shishir Jain has submitted that as per the practice prevailing in the High Court, the reviewing authority of all the employees working in the Registry at Lucknow bench is the Senior Registrar and the Registrar General is the accepting authority for all the officers of the Registry in the High Court. He has further submitted that the said position would be clear also from the perusal of the form on which the ACR are written. The lowest authority to initiate the ACR would be 3 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 the Deputy Registrar. Even in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Senior Registrar would be the reviewing authority and the Registrar General would be the accepting authority, and accordingly it was prayed that present petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch, as there is no infirmity with the adverse remarks reported by the Senior Registrar.

8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Undoubtedly, with regard to the fact that the manner in which the ACR has to be written and initiated should be as per the Government order 21.05.1976 in light of the fact that as per the Rule 40 of the Rules, 1976, and orders which are applicable to the Government servants holding corresponding posts in the Government of UP shall apply subject to any modification, variation or exception made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. No order verying the Government order dated 21.05.1976 has been passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice so far nor has any such fact been averred in the counter affidavit, leading us to assume that the Government order dated 21.05.1976 would not be applicable. As per the said Government order, the word used is the “immediate superior officer/immediate higher officer” of the person who would be the reporting authority. The next superior higher authority would be the reviewing authority, and thereafter, the next higher superior authority would be the accepting authority. It is open for the High Court to either follow the Government order dated

21.05.1976, in the manner, it prescribes for giving the ACR or modify and provide an alternative procedure for the same. In absence of any order having been passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the High Court was bound to follow the Government order dated 21.05.1976. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar has rightly initiated the ACR 4 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 against the petitioner and the same was to be reviewed by the Deputy Registrar and not by the Senior Registrar.

10. Considering the fact that as per the Government order dated

21.05.1976, the Senior Registrar does not fall into the category of either the reporting, reviewing or accepting authority inasmuch as the immediate superior authority of the petitioner would be the Assistant, Deputy and Joint Registrar respectively.

11. Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the High Court has submitted that the proforma on the basis of which ACRs are written, has been duly approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, according to which the Registrar General would be the accepting authority for all the officers and officials of the Allahabad High Court. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute this fact and hence this Court finds that the Government Order dated 21.05.1976 in its modified form to the effect that Registrar General would be accepting authority for all the officers and officials of the Allahabad High Court, would be applicable.

12. Apart from the aforesaid modification, no other modification has been indicated by the respondents to assume that with regard to the reporting and reviewing officer, there would be no change in its application, which accordingly would be as per the Government Order dated 21.05.1976.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the facts of the present case where Assistant Registrar was the reporting officer of the petitioner and he did not report any adverse remark against petitioner and even the Deputy Registrar had agreed with the findings endorsed by the Reporting Officer and finally in the chain of completion of 5 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 ACR was the Registrar General who had accepted the remarks of the Reviewing Officer on 18.07.2016.

14. Even as per arguments advanced by the respondents that petitioner was working on the post of Section Officer and his immediate superior officer was Assistant Registrar who had reported the conduct of the petitioner and subsequently, the Deputy Registrar in his capacity as the Reviewing Officer had endorsed the remarks given by the Assistant Registrar (Reporting Officer) on 04.03.2016. Considering the fact that the Registrar General is the Accepting Authority, we do not find that the Senior Registrar falls in any chain of authorities either as the Reporting Officer, Accepting Officer or Reviewing Officer and accordingly, had no authority to endorse the adverse remark against petitioner in his capacity as Reviewing Officer.

15. In the chain of officers who record ACRs we find that there  is only one Accepting Authority, one Reviewing Authority and one Reporting Authority and there is no situation or circumstance enabling more than one person to do the job of aforesaid task is prescribed. Further, the ACRs of the officers/officials posted at High Court Lucknow are forwarded by the Senior Registrar to the Reviewing Authority who is Registrar General.

16. On query being made by this Court, it as fairly submitted by learned counsel for the High Court that there is no order of modification, which has been accepted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on the basis of which it can be said that the Senior Registrar at High Court Lucknow acts as Reviewing Authority for all the officers/officials posted at High Court Lucknow. 6 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322

17. Accordingly, with regard to the petitioner this Court finds that the Senior Registrar do not have any authority to give adverse remark, in his capacity as Reviewing Authority inasmuch as, the Deputy Registrar has already reviewed the remarks given by the Assistant Registrar and the file thereafter should have been gone only to the Registrar General for being accepted in the capacity of Accepting Authority.

18. This Court is of the considered view that such practice which has been followed at the High Court Lucknow, treating the Senior Registrar to be the Reviewing Authority for all the officers/officials posted at High Court Lucknow, is not supported by any order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per Rule 40 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and nor supported by the Government Order dated 21.05.1976, and therefore, this Court do not find any justification in the endorsement of the Senior Registrar of the adverse remarks against petitioner in the present case.

19. In view of above, the adverse remark given by the Senior Registrar to the petitioner are without jurisdiction and are accordingly, expunged. The impugned order dated 30.07.2021 is hereby set aside.

20. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) 7 ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Allahabad High Court, who has disagreed with the aforesaid reporting and recorded an adverse entry to the ACR of the petitioner. A perusal of adverse entry would itself reveal that the petitioner is a member of the Service Union of the employees of the High Court and in his capacity, he has taken part in various agitations and has raised various grievances of the Union before the authorities. As per the aforesaid remarks, the petitioner was not regularly attending his duties and was more involved in the work of Union. Due to which, the work has suffered on numerous occasions and additional hands had to be deployed in place of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the adverse remarks as well as the order of rejection, has submitted that the adverse remarks endorsed by the Senior Registrar were without jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Section Officer and his immediate superior was the Assistant Registrar, who was the reporting authority and Deputy Registrar would be the reviewing authority and the file should not have been placed before the Senior Registrar inasmuch, as per the practice followed by the Allahabad High Court, the Registrar General is the accepting authority for all the employees of the High Court and accordingly remarks endorsed by the Senior Registrar are without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be set Aside.

6. It was further submitted that the services of the petitioner are governed by Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of 2 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1976”), from a bare perusal of Rule 40, it would be clear that in absence of any rules made by the High Court for the purpose of recording of adverse remarks, the Government orders pertaining to coordinate employees of the State Government would apply to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that in this regard, the Government order dated 21.05.1976 provides for a detailed procedure for recording of the ACR. In the said rules, it is provided that ACR shall be initiated by the officer immediately superior to the reporting authority and the said remark would be reviewed by the officer immediately higher to the reporting authority and the next immediate higher authority would be the accepting authority. In this regard, it was submitted that the Assistant Registrar would be the reporting officer, while the Deputy Registrar would be the reviewing officer. There would not have been any difficulty in appreciating and deciding the present controversy inasmuch as, if the Senior Registrar had been the accepting authority as per the Government order dated 21.05.1976, he could have endorsed the adverse entry against the petitioner in his capacity as the accepting authority. In the instant case, the Senior Registrar has acted in the present case as a reviewing authority rather than accepting authority while the Registrar General has accepted the remarks of the Senior Registrar.

7. Shri Shishir Jain has submitted that as per the practice prevailing in the High Court, the reviewing authority of all the employees working in the Registry at Lucknow bench is the Senior Registrar and the Registrar General is the accepting authority for all the officers of the Registry in the High Court. He has further submitted that the said position would be clear also from the perusal of the form on which the ACR are written. The lowest authority to initiate the ACR would be 3 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 the Deputy Registrar. Even in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Senior Registrar would be the reviewing authority and the Registrar General would be the accepting authority, and accordingly it was prayed that present petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch, as there is no infirmity with the adverse remarks reported by the Senior Registrar.

8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Undoubtedly, with regard to the fact that the manner in which the ACR has to be written and initiated should be as per the Government order 21.05.1976 in light of the fact that as per the Rule 40 of the Rules, 1976, and orders which are applicable to the Government servants holding corresponding posts in the Government of UP shall apply subject to any modification, variation or exception made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. No order verying the Government order dated 21.05.1976 has been passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice so far nor has any such fact been averred in the counter affidavit, leading us to assume that the Government order dated 21.05.1976 would not be applicable. As per the said Government order, the word used is the “immediate superior officer/immediate higher officer” of the person who would be the reporting authority. The next superior higher authority would be the reviewing authority, and thereafter, the next higher superior authority would be the accepting authority. It is open for the High Court to either follow the Government order dated

21.05.1976, in the manner, it prescribes for giving the ACR or modify and provide an alternative procedure for the same. In absence of any order having been passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the High Court was bound to follow the Government order dated 21.05.1976. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar has rightly initiated the ACR 4 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 against the petitioner and the same was to be reviewed by the Deputy Registrar and not by the Senior Registrar.

10. Considering the fact that as per the Government order dated

21.05.1976, the Senior Registrar does not fall into the category of either the reporting, reviewing or accepting authority inasmuch as the immediate superior authority of the petitioner would be the Assistant, Deputy and Joint Registrar respectively.

11. Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the High Court has submitted that the proforma on the basis of which ACRs are written, has been duly approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, according to which the Registrar General would be the accepting authority for all the officers and officials of the Allahabad High Court. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute this fact and hence this Court finds that the Government Order dated 21.05.1976 in its modified form to the effect that Registrar General would be accepting authority for all the officers and officials of the Allahabad High Court, would be applicable.

12. Apart from the aforesaid modification, no other modification has been indicated by the respondents to assume that with regard to the reporting and reviewing officer, there would be no change in its application, which accordingly would be as per the Government Order dated 21.05.1976.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the facts of the present case where Assistant Registrar was the reporting officer of the petitioner and he did not report any adverse remark against petitioner and even the Deputy Registrar had agreed with the findings endorsed by the Reporting Officer and finally in the chain of completion of 5 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322 ACR was the Registrar General who had accepted the remarks of the Reviewing Officer on 18.07.2016.

14. Even as per arguments advanced by the respondents that petitioner was working on the post of Section Officer and his immediate superior officer was Assistant Registrar who had reported the conduct of the petitioner and subsequently, the Deputy Registrar in his capacity as the Reviewing Officer had endorsed the remarks given by the Assistant Registrar (Reporting Officer) on 04.03.2016. Considering the fact that the Registrar General is the Accepting Authority, we do not find that the Senior Registrar falls in any chain of authorities either as the Reporting Officer, Accepting Officer or Reviewing Officer and accordingly, had no authority to endorse the adverse remark against petitioner in his capacity as Reviewing Officer.

15. In the chain of officers who record ACRs we find that there  is only one Accepting Authority, one Reviewing Authority and one Reporting Authority and there is no situation or circumstance enabling more than one person to do the job of aforesaid task is prescribed. Further, the ACRs of the officers/officials posted at High Court Lucknow are forwarded by the Senior Registrar to the Reviewing Authority who is Registrar General.

16. On query being made by this Court, it as fairly submitted by learned counsel for the High Court that there is no order of modification, which has been accepted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on the basis of which it can be said that the Senior Registrar at High Court Lucknow acts as Reviewing Authority for all the officers/officials posted at High Court Lucknow. 6 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13322

17. Accordingly, with regard to the petitioner this Court finds that the Senior Registrar do not have any authority to give adverse remark, in his capacity as Reviewing Authority inasmuch as, the Deputy Registrar has already reviewed the remarks given by the Assistant Registrar and the file thereafter should have been gone only to the Registrar General for being accepted in the capacity of Accepting Authority.

18. This Court is of the considered view that such practice which has been followed at the High Court Lucknow, treating the Senior Registrar to be the Reviewing Authority for all the officers/officials posted at High Court Lucknow, is not supported by any order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per Rule 40 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and nor supported by the Government Order dated 21.05.1976, and therefore, this Court do not find any justification in the endorsement of the Senior Registrar of the adverse remarks against petitioner in the present case.

19. In view of above, the adverse remark given by the Senior Registrar to the petitioner are without jurisdiction and are accordingly, expunged. The impugned order dated 30.07.2021 is hereby set aside.

20. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) 7 ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench