ACR, private practice and promotion: the file of a Rajasthan medical officer
Dr Anita Sharma, a Rajasthan Medical Service officer with 19 years' service, is due for promotion to Senior Specialist. In the same fortnight three papers reach the Principal Secretary, Medical Education: her 2022 ACR, written by a Civil Surgeon and reviewed by a Director, records 'outstanding' and 'fit for promotion'; her 2023 ACR by her present Civil Surgeon grades her 'average' and adds that she 'regularly leaves before 3 pm', a remark never communicated to her; and an anonymous complaint alleges that she runs a private clinic in Jodhpur through her brother and has posted comments on social media criticising a minister's health policy. A preliminary enquiry by the CMHO finds a clinic registered in her brother's name at an address matching her family home, but no patient records on the premises. No charge sheet has been served. The Departmental Promotion Committee meets next week. Two other candidates are senior to her by six months, but one of them faces a pending corruption case in which a charge sheet was filed a year ago.
1. Can Dr Sharma's promotion be withheld? Advise the Departmental Promotion Committee on the ACRs, the adverse remark and the embargo on promotion.
Read the worked answer
ACRs first. The 2023 grading 'average' with an appended remark that she leaves early is adverse material. An adverse remark that is not communicated and not followed by an opportunity to represent cannot be used to deny promotion. The DPC should therefore not act on the uncommunicated remark as it stands. The lawful course is to send the remark back to the reporting and reviewing officers to confirm whether it reflects an assessment or an observation, communicate the gist to Dr Sharma, allow her a reasonable time to represent - normally within the period prescribed by the state's instructions - and have the representation disposed of by a higher authority before the ACR is placed before any future DPC.
The 2022 ACR is favourable and complete and can be relied upon.
Sealed cover. The sealed-cover procedure applies only where a charge sheet or a prosecution for a criminal offence or a proceeding for a major penalty is pending. An anonymous complaint and a preliminary enquiry are not enough. Therefore Dr Sharma cannot be denied promotion under sealed cover; the file should show that no charge sheet exists as on the date of the DPC.
The senior candidate with a pending case. A charge sheet filed in a corruption case is exactly the situation the sealed-cover rule addresses. His case should be kept in a sealed cover, and the DPC should assess him on merit without opening the cover. If found fit, the promotion takes effect only on the conclusion of the proceedings. This is the orderly way to protect both the integrity of the service and the officer's right to be considered.
2. Analyse the conduct allegations - private practice through a relative, and social media criticism of a minister's health policy - and state what proceeding, if any, is warranted, with its safeguards.
Read the worked answer
The two allegations are not of equal weight.
Private practice. Government doctors are barred from private practice under the conduct rules. Using a relative as a benami is the usual device to evade the bar, and the preliminary enquiry has produced a specific fact: a clinic registered at the family home address. That is enough to justify a regular departmental enquiry, not enough for a penalty. The department must prove (a) that the clinic was in fact run from those premises, (b) Dr Sharma's connection to its operation, and (c) the income or patients attributable to it. Absence of patient records on one visit proves nothing either way; the enquiry should call for electricity bills, registration records of the nursing home, staff statements and UPI or bank receipts.
Social media criticism. A government servant must maintain political neutrality and cannot criticise government policy in a manner that impairs the service's credibility. But criticism of a policy is different from criticism of an individual minister, and the rule must be applied with proportion. A comment made in a personal capacity, without disclosing official position and without incitement, will ordinarily merit counselling rather than a major penalty. A blanket ban would violate the reasonable restriction analysis under Article 19(2) and 19(1)(a).
Safeguards. Frame precise articles of charge; furnish documents and the enquiry report; give an opportunity to cross-examine; avoid combining the enquiry with the promotion decision; and complete the proceeding within the time limits set by the disciplinary rules. Defer the promotion only through the sealed cover if a charge sheet is issued before the DPC, not by an executive memorandum.