The Supreme Court’s decision today marks a significant development in the case involving senior IAS Officer Ashok Khemka and the Haryana government. The court allowed the Haryana government’s challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had set aside Chief Minister ML Khattar’s remarks and overall grade regarding Khemka’s Performance Appraisal Report (PAR).
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma stated, “We are of the opinion that the learned Division Bench of the High Court erred in law.” This indicates that the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s decision and found fault with its legal reasoning.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling also included a directive to the Accepting Authority, which in this case is Chief Minister ML Khattar, to decide Khemka’s representation under Rule 9(7B) of the All India Services (PAR) Rules within 60 days. This rule pertains to the process of reviewing and addressing grievances related to performance appraisal reports of officers in the All India Services.
Following the Accepting Authority’s decision on Khemka’s representation, he will be allowed to take recourse to further legal remedies available to him under the law. This indicates that while the Supreme Court has overturned the High Court’s decision regarding Khattar’s remarks and overall grade in Khemka’s PAR, it has ensured that Khemka’s right to seek redressal for any grievances related to his PAR is protected.
The case of Ashok Khemka has been widely followed and has sparked discussions on the functioning of bureaucracy and political interference in administrative matters. Khemka, known for his integrity and bold decisions, has faced several transfers and challenges throughout his career, which have often been attributed to his actions against corruption and malpractice.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of adhering to legal principles and procedures in matters related to the appraisal and review of government officers’ performance. It emphasizes the need for transparency and fairness in the evaluation process, ensuring that officers like Khemka are given a fair opportunity to address any concerns or discrepancies in their appraisal reports.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to have a significant impact on the future course of action in this case and may set a precedent for similar cases involving the appraisal and review of government officers’ performance.
