Supreme Court: IAS Officers Can't Write ACRs Of Indian Forest Service Officers Up To APCCF Rank | Reporting Authority Must Be Immediate Superior Within Forest Department
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that a Government Order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh concerning the appraisal structure for Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers was in violation of prior binding orders of the Court. The Bench quashed the impugned Government Order dated 29th June 2024 and directed the State to reframe its appraisal rules strictly in compliance with judicial directives. The Court held that the said Government Order was in "violation of the directions of this Court" and constituted a "rather contemptuous" action, noting that it had been issued without seeking any clarification or modification from the Supreme Court. The State was directed to implement the necessary amendments within one month from the date of the judgment.
The applications under consideration stemmed from the long-standing proceedings in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 filed in the public interest titled T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others. The particular issue in this set of interlocutory applications revolved around the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) system applicable to officers in the Indian Forest Service (IFS), particularly in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The dispute arose due to the issuance of a Government Order (G.O.) dated 29th June 2024 by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The order introduced new provisions in the process of preparing PARs for IFS officers, including roles for Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the G.O. stated that before evaluating the performance of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), the concerned Conservator or Chief Conservator of Forests would seek a note from the District Collector. Similarly, for evaluating the Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development) would seek a note from the Divisional Commissioner. Comments on areas such as MANREGAS, Forest Rights Act, mining, district planning, and related developmental activities were to be obtained and considered during the PAR process.
Applicants including IFS officers, the Indian Forest Service Association (State Unit), and concerned individuals challenged the G.O. They contended that it violated binding judicial precedents and created a reporting hierarchy that undermined the autonomy of the IFS.
Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae, submitted that the G.O. was in direct violation of earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa (1987), Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007), and the Court's own orders in the present writ petition dated 22nd September 2000 and 19th April 2004.
The Solicitor General of India, Shri Tushar Mehta, appeared on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He defended the G.O. by submitting that the State's administrative structure, under the Government Business Allocation Rules framed by the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution, established that Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) and Principal Secretary (PS) ranked higher than the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and were thus competent to supervise and accept the performance appraisals.
He further submitted that Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs) held multiple responsibilities in areas like enforcement of forest laws, developmental work, and coordination with other departments. As such, evaluation by ACS/PS was appropriate given their administrative control.
However, the Solicitor General also acknowledged concerns raised by the IFS officers and submitted that while ACS/PS would not insist on direct marking, their comments would be conveyed to the reviewing authorities only for consideration.
The dispute required the Court to examine the statutory framework governing all-India services, including the All-India Services Act, 1951, the All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (as amended), and the All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.
The definitions in these rules clarify that the reporting, reviewing, and accepting authorities are those who supervise the performance of the officers concerned. Internal communications from the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had previously clarified that for officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF), the reporting authority should be from within the Forest Department.
The Court also considered the report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) submitted in 2004, which had recommended that only officers from within the Forest Department should write the PARs for IFS officers up to the rank of APCCF. The Court had previously accepted this report and directed all States to comply with the same.
The State of Madhya Pradesh had earlier filed an application (I.A. No.776 of 2002) seeking modification of the order dated 22nd September 2000. The Supreme Court dismissed that application and reiterated its directions.
Despite these orders, the State of Madhya Pradesh issued the G.O. dated 29th June 2024 without seeking clarification or modification from the Supreme Court, thereby triggering the present applications.
The Court recorded "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."
Referring to P.C. Wadhwa, the Bench observed "Such an authority must be one superior in rank to the member of the Service concerned."
In regard to Santosh Bharti, the Court reiterated "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."
The Court further stated in"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."
On internal memorandums and government communications, the Court recorded "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 of another Member of the Service in the same grade or pay."
In view of the Report of the Central Empowered Committee and previous binding orders, the Court noted “The CR should normally be written by the officer of higher rank and pay scale. It should never be allowed to be written by an officer of a lower rank or who is in a lower pay scale."
The Bench remarked that the impugned G.O. was not just contrary to the judicial precedents but also disregarded the Supreme Court's order dated 22nd September 2000. The judgment remarked in "We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature... issued without even seeking clarification/modification of this Court."
The Court passed a set of directions. It stated "The present applications are allowed."
The Court held "The impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2024 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."
The Bench directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to reframe its rules strictly in line with previous judicial directives. The Court ordered "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."
Further, the Court mandated a strict timeline for compliance. It ordered "The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of this judgment."
In conclusion, the Court acknowledged the contribution of counsels stating "We place on record our appreciation for the efforts put in by Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae... and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General."
Case Title: In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 748
Case Number: I.A. No. 172422 of 2024 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai , Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
