SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While granting leave on December 12, 2006, a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.) felt that there was inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others, 1996 2 SCC 363 and Union of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh, 2006 1 SCC 368 and consequently, opined that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up for consideration before us.

(2.) The referral order dated December 12, 2006 reads as follows:

(3.) Subsequent to the above two decisions, in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, 2008 8 SCC 725 this Court had an occasion to consider the question about the communication of the entry in the ACR of a public servant (other than military service). A two Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consideration of the matter and also after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam, 1996 2 SCC 363 and principles of natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in A.K. Praipak vs. Union of India, 1969 2 SCC 262; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC 248; Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985 3 SCC 398; Canara Bank vs. V. K. Awasthy, 2005 6 SCC 321 and State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust, 2007 3 SCC 587 concluded that every entry in the ACR of a public service must be communicated to him within a reasonable period whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is what this Court in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the report in Dev Dutt, 2008 8 SCC 725: