The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that an employee cannot be expected to obtain his own vigilance clearance or ensure maintenance of his Annual Performance Reports (APRs), as both are functions of the employer department.
Hearing a service petition relating to denial-of-service benefits, the bench observed that vigilance clearance is an internal administrative process. It is to be generated by the concerned department through the General Administration Department (Vigilance), and an employee has no role to play in securing it.
Similarly, the Court noted that maintenance and preservation of APRs / Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) is the exclusive responsibility of the reporting and custodial authorities. An employee cannot be penalised for gaps, non-writing or non-availability of such records, unless the lapse is directly attributable to him.
The Court held that withholding promotion, MACP, pension or other retiral dues on the ground that vigilance clearance is awaited or APRs are incomplete is arbitrary, particularly when the employee has superannuated or has a long, unblemished service. The department cannot take advantage of its own administrative delay.
It further reiterated that unless there is a pending disciplinary proceeding, suspension, or criminal prosecution culminating in cognizance by a court, vigilance clearance cannot be routinely denied. Mere pendency of a preliminary inquiry or an FIR without judicial proceedings does not amount to a blemish.
Directing the respondents to release the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a fixed timeframe, the High Court cautioned that shifting the burden of internal clearances onto the employee violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and defeats the purpose of service jurisprudence.
