Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) ruled that officers in the Indian Administrative Service cannot write the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Indian Forest Service(IFS) officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF).

The Court quashed a Government Order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh on June 29, 2024, as per which the comments of the District Collector were regarded as relevant for the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) and the comments of the Divisional Commissioner were relevant for the PAR of Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development).

The Government Order was challenged as violative of the earlier directions of the Court which mandated that the “reporting authority”, “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” of IFS officers cannot be IAS officers.

The Court noted that in State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and Another (1987) 2 SCC 602, it was mandated that the “reporting authority” should be a person higher in rank than the member of the Service.

In Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 273, the Court had ruled that IAS Officers cannot be the reviewing authorities for IFS officers. It was held that up to the officer of the rank of APCCF, the “reporting authority” has to be the immediately superior officer within the Forest Department. Only in the case of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests can the “reporting authority” be a person in another department since the PCCF is the most superior person in the Forest Service. Even then, such reporting authority should be higher in rank and must be familiar with the work of the PCCF.

Also, on 19th April 2004, the Supreme Court rejected an application filed by the State of MP seeking modification of the above direction. The Court passed this order in the forest batch case (TN Godavarman Thirumalpad case) after taking the view of the Central Empowered Committee.

The Court also referred to the 2024 precedent in State of Assam and Others v. Binod Kumar and Others which quashed an Assam rule as per which a civil service officer was the reporting officer of the SP-ranked police officer.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests also wrote to all the State Governments to ensure that for writing the ACRs of the IFS officers up to the rank of APCCF, the “reporting authority” should be their immediate superior authorities in the Forest Department.

In this backdrop, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih ruled that the "G.O. dated 29th June 2024 is totally in violation of the specific directions issued by this Court vide its orders dated 22nd September 2000 in the present proceedings (Santosh Bharti case) and 19th April 2024."

The Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Government was actually in contempt of the directions of the Supreme Court. However, it refrained from taking further action. The Court noted that no other State is following this practice adopted by Madhya Pradesh.

Quashing the GO, the Court observed :

"The legal position as approved by this Court in two separate orders of this Court and as rightly understood by the MoEF as could be seen from its letter dated 8th November 2001 is that insofar as writing of ACRs up to the rank of APCCF is concerned, the “reporting authority” should be the immediate superior authority in the Forest Department. The position is clear as regards “reviewing authority” or “reporting authority” in relation to officers up to the rank of APCCF. It is clear that except the PCCF, the “reporting authority” has to be a superior officer from the IFS. It is only with regard to PCCF that the “reporting authority” would be a person to whom he reports and who is superior to him in rank. No doubt that, if necessary, the State Governments can provide that the Collectors and Commissioners can record their comments on a separate sheet about the performance of the IFS officers in relation to the implementation of developmental work funded by the district administration. However, the same is again required to be considered by a superior departmental officer of the IFS."

The Court directed the State to amend its rule by adhering to the earlier directions.

During the hearing of this matter, Justice Gavai had orally remarked that many IAS officers wanted to show their superiority over IFS officers.

"In my experience as a government pleader for 3 yrs and a judge for 22 yrs, I can tell you IAS officers want to show their supremacy over IPS and IFS officers...there is always a conflict...there is always heartburning amongst the IPS and IFS as to why though they are part of the same [...] the IAS should treat them as superiors", Justice Gavai had orally commented.

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar assisted the Court as amicus curiae. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the State.

Case : In Re Performance Appraisal Reports Of The Officers Of The Indian Forest Service

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 605

Click here to read the judgment