Reporting Authority Must Be a Person to Whom the Officer Is Answerable: Supreme Court Quashes Madhya Pradesh’s IFS Appraisal Order
- Chintan Shah
- May 22
- 4 min read
Summary
Case Title: In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service
Date of Judgment: 21st May 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih
Petitioner: Gaurav Kumar Bansal and others
Respondents: Union of India and Others
Advocates: Shri K. Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae), Shri Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General for State of Madhya Pradesh)
Statutes and Rules Invoked:
All India Services Act, 1951
All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970
All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007
Key Precedents Cited:
State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, (1987) 2 SCC 602
Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 273
State of Assam v. Binod Kumar, (2024) 3 SCC 611
Context and Background
The Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on 21st May 2025 addresses a long-standing institutional tension between the Indian Forest Service (IFS) and the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), particularly concerning who has the legal and administrative authority to evaluate IFS officers' performance.
The controversy stemmed from a Government Order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 29th June 2024. This order required IAS officers such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners to provide inputs on the performance of IFS officers—inputs that would influence their official Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs). The applicants challenged this practice, asserting that it violates both statutory rules and prior judicial directions.
Core Issue
At the heart of the dispute was whether IAS officers can act as reporting, reviewing, or accepting authorities for IFS officers in matters of performance appraisal. The challenge argued that this undermines the administrative integrity and independence of the IFS and violates established legal standards.
Statutory and Administrative Framework
The Hon’ble Court undertook a detailed analysis of several statutory instruments:
All India Services Act, 1951, particularly Section 3(1), which authorises the central government to make service rules in consultation with state governments.
Confidential Rolls Rules of 1970 and 2007, which define “reporting”, “reviewing”, and “accepting” authorities. Key emphasis was placed on the requirement that these roles be occupied by officers who directly supervise the officer reported upon—ideally from within the same service.
Clarifications and circulars from the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), notably:
The MoEF’s 2001 letter mandating that up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF), the reporting authority should be a superior officer within the Forest Department.
The DoPT’s 2004 clarification affirming that only Forest Department officers should assess their peers, unless they are working outside the department.
Legal Precedents and Interpretation
The Court reaffirmed two critical decisions:
1. State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa (1987)
In this landmark case, the Court had observed:
“A reporting authority must be a person to whom the member of the service is answerable for his performance… such an authority must be one superior in rank.”
This judgment set a crucial precedent by underscoring that appraisals must be conducted by individuals with real administrative oversight—not merely bureaucratic seniority.
2. Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007)
In this case, the Court held:
“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 bench, echoing these precedents, held that the Government Order of Madhya Pradesh violated the very essence of these decisions.
Critique of the Madhya Pradesh Government Order
The impugned Government Order allowed inputs from civil administrative officers (IAS) into the PARs of IFS officers on parameters like MGNREGS, Forest Rights Act, land acquisition, and development work. However, the Supreme Court found this structure deeply problematic.
The Hon’ble Chief Justice observed that:
“The impugned G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature… issued without even seeking clarification/modification of this Court.”
This stinging observation reflects the Court’s dissatisfaction with Madhya Pradesh’s decision to unilaterally revive a model already struck down.
Notably, the bench refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, choosing instead to provide remedial directions.
Key Observations and Quotes
Several quotes from the judgment underscore its constitutional and administrative gravity:
On supervisory alignment:
“It is necessary that the evaluation of the performance of DFOs should be accepted by the Secretary of the Forest Department who is normally an ACS/PS.”
On the principle of propriety:
“It is just and proper that a reporting authority must be a person to whom the member of the Service is answerable for his performance.”
On judicial consistency:
“We are of the considered view that the G.O. dated 29th June 2024 is totally in violation of the specific directions issued by this Court…”
Directions Issued
The Supreme Court issued the following binding directions:
The Government Order dated 29th June 2024 was quashed and declared violative of its earlier rulings.
The State of Madhya Pradesh was directed to reframe the appraisal mechanism strictly adhering to:
Supreme Court’s order in Santosh Bharti (2000)
Clarifications issued by MoEF (2001) and DoPT (2004)
Deadline: Compliance to be ensured within one month from the date of judgment.
Impact and Implications
This judgment carries both immediate and long-term consequences for administrative law and civil services governance:
Administrative Autonomy Restored: It reasserts that intra-service reporting cannot be subordinated to inter-service hierarchies without compelling administrative rationale.
Judicial Supremacy Reinforced: The decision serves as a cautionary precedent against executive non-compliance with judicial directions.
Inter-Service Clarity: It delineates the boundaries between civil services, ensuring that supervisory roles are not diluted across unrelated departments.
Replicability Across States: The judgment is not just corrective for Madhya Pradesh but also reaffirms best practices for other states and union territories.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of Indian Forest Service Officers stands as a meticulous reaffirmation of the institutional independence of All India Services. By quashing the Madhya Pradesh Government’s unilateral deviation from established norms, the Court has decisively safeguarded the integrity of the appraisal system, underlined the supremacy of judicial directions, and reinforced the principles of fair and transparent governance.
This ruling also sends an unmistakable message to the executive: in a federal democracy governed by the rule of law, administrative innovation must never come at the cost of constitutional discipline.
Comentarios