Summary
The Deputy Commissioner could not initiate the performance appraisal of an Assam district Superintendent of Police. The Assam Police Manual’s Rule 63(iii) conflicted with the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 and Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007, which bars the Deputy Commissioner from interfering in police organization and discipline.
Issues
- Whether Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual could authorize a Deputy Commissioner to initiate an IPS district Superintendent of Police’s ACR/APAR under the governing All India Services rules and the Assam Police Act, 2007.
Provisions considered
- Rule 63(iii), Assam Police ManualThe provision made the Deputy Commissioner the reporting authority for a district Superintendent of Police, with police officers reviewing and accepting the report. The Court held that this arrangement did not fit the governing service-rule scheme and intruded on police organization and discipline. (¶¶ 1, 3, 4, 8, 15, 16, 26, 27)
- Sections 14(1), 14(2) and 65, Assam Police Act, 2007Section 14(1) places police administration in the Superintendent of Police under the Deputy Commissioner’s general control and direction; Section 14(2) bars the Deputy Commissioner from interfering in police organization and discipline. The provisions were harmoniously construed, and Section 65 confirms that IPS officers serving in Assam remain governed by applicable All India Service rules. (¶¶ 4, 12, 13, 20, 21, 26)
- Rules 2(a), 2(j), 2(k), 3 and 11; Form I, clause 6, All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007The defined reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities must supervise the relevant officer or the preceding assessment authority. Read together, the rules require these roles to be within the same service or department; the reporting authority must supervise the officer’s performance, and the reviewing authority must supervise the reporting authority. (¶¶ 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26)
- Rules 2(a), 2(e), 2(f); Instruction 5 to Form I, All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970The Court considered the amended definition of reporting authority and the continuing definition of reviewing authority, which requires supervision of the reporting authority, as part of the framework that the 2007 Rules carried forward. (¶¶ 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 23)
Held
- Under the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007, the reporting authority need not be the officer’s immediate superior, but must supervise that officer’s performance. Because the reviewing authority must supervise the reporting authority, the reporting and reviewing roles must be within the same service or department; the Government’s discretion to designate an authority does not extend to selecting an authority outside it. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 18, 19)
- Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 must be read together: the Deputy Commissioner’s general control and direction over district police does not permit interference with the police force’s internal organization or discipline. Initiating a Superintendent of Police’s performance assessment under Rule 63(iii) would amount to such interference. (¶¶ 12, 20, 21, 22, 26)
- Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual is incompatible with the All India Services appraisal rules and Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act insofar as it makes the Deputy Commissioner the reporting authority for the district Superintendent of Police. The reporting authority must also be in a higher grade of pay than the officer reported upon. (¶¶ 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
Result
The State’s appeal was dismissed, leaving in place the High Court’s judgment invalidating Rule 63(iii) in the stated application. Pending applications were closed; parties were to bear their own costs.