Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Sl.No.,Year,APAR Grading

1,2009 to 2010,Very Good

2,2010 to 2011,Very Good

3,2011 to 2012,Very Good

4,2012 to 2013,Outstanding

5,01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014,Outstanding

6,01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015,Outstanding

7,01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016,Outstanding

8,23/06/2016 to 31/03/2017,Good (below bench mark)

9,01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018,Very Good

Sl.No.,Year,APAR Grading

1,2009 to 2010,Very Good

2,2010 to 2011,Very Good

3,2011 to 2012,Very Good

4,2012 to 2013,Outstanding

5,01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014,Outstanding

6,01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015,Outstanding

7,01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016,Outstanding

8,23/06/2016 to 31/03/2017,Good (below bench mark)

9,01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018,Very Good

competent authority and the reviewing authority have to act fairly or objectively in assessing the character, integrity and performance of",,

the incumbent. .....â€​,,

[19]. In S.T. Ramesh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:",,

“40. The confidential report is an important document as it provides the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of an,,

officer and further achievements in his career. This Court has held that the performance appraisal through CRs should be used as a tool for,,

human resource development and are not to be used as a fault-finding process but a developmental one. ....""",,

[20]. In the case on hand, except the period under report, the performance of the petitioner has been consistently of high quality. As stated above, the",,

petitioner has been graded as ""very good"" and ""outstanding"" throughout his career, except the period from 23.06.2016 to 31.03.2017. Without taking",,

into consideration of the performance of the petitioner and without application of mind, the reporting/reviewing authorities have given the grade for the",,

period 23.06.2016 to 31.03.2017 as ""good"", which is the below bench mark to affect the promotion and therefore, the same needs to be reviewed by",,

the authorities concerned.,,

[21]. In East Coast Railway (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:",,

.. while application of mind to the material available to the competent authority is an essential prerequisite for the making of a valid",,

order, that requirement should not be confused with the sufficient of such material to support any such order. ....... Sufficiency or otherwise",,

of the material and so also its admissibility to support a decision the validity whereof is being judicially reviewed may even otherwise,,

depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule can be formulated in that regard nor do we propose to do so,,

in this case.â€​,,

[22]. In G. Vallikumari (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:",,

“19. ...... The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi-judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of,,

passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognised facets of the,,

rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned.â€​,,

[23]. In the present case, recording of grading ""good"" for the period under report is without any basis and is not justified. Further, the grading recorded",,

by the reporting/reviewing authorities for the period from 23.06.2016 to 31.03 .2017 portrays a downbeat image of the petitioner's,,

administrative/operational achievements during the aforesaid period as well as his profession acumen which he had earned by toiling hard all through,,

the years of his unblemished service.,,

[24]. In Insp./GD Krishna Rajak (supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held as under:",,

The dart board speaks it all. For all the Years in question, except the year 2007, the petitioner has been graded on the seven facets,",,

mostly 'Very Good'; on some occasion 'Good' and on some occasion 'Outstanding'. The remarks for the year 2007 are a complete mismatch.,,

The result is that for the years 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2008 the overall ACR grading of the petitioner is 'Good' and that for the years 1996,",,

1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010 and 2011 the ACR grading is 'Very Good' and for the years 2002, 2005 and 2009 is 'Outstanding', for",,

the year 2007 it is 'Average'.,,

Now, it is not possible that for 11 years a person is either 'Very Good' or 'Outstanding' and then for one year he drops to 'Average' and",,

then regains 'Very Good' and 'Outstanding' in the next three years.,,

Let us illustrate one trait. The trait No.(iii) i.e., 'Power of Expression'. This is not a trait which is acquired and lost overnight. The dart",,

board would reveal that for this trait the petitioner has been rated all throughout as 'Good', 'Very Good' or 'Outstanding', but for the year",,

2007 the officer has written that petitioner's power of expression is not effective.,,

There is obviously a problem, and the problem appears to be as disclosed by the petitioner; that the Commandant under whom he was",,

working i.e., M.P. Singh was accepting lower quality of ration for troops and the petitioner being a member of the Tendering",,

Opening/Condemnation Board had wanted samples to be obtained and in retaliation, the Commandant Shri M.P.Singh, made entries",,

reflecting petitioner in a poor light.,,

We are pained to note that in the impugned memorandum dated February 09, 2012, the Competent Authority has rejected the",,

representation of the petitioner against the adverse grading awarded to the petitioner and the overall grading 'Average' for the year 2007,",,

oblivious of the fact that a wrong against the petitioner stands stark in the ACR grading for the year 2007.,,

The dart, shot at the dart board, is bound to see the bull's eye i.e, the offending comments noted in the ACR grading of the petitioner",,

because of their inherent strength and character to attract the dart to the board where the ACR gradings stand noted.,,

We allow the writ petition and strike down the ACR grading awarded to the petitioner for the year 2007, and since the Competent",,

Authority has totally misapplied its mind, being of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served for the Competent Authority to be",,

directed to reconsider the ACR grading for the year 2007, we declare that said year's ACR grading be excluded while considering the",,

entitlement of the petitioner for promotion. Highlighting that at the DPC which met somewhere in the year 2008, the petitioner was",,

superseded on account of the below benchmark ACR grading for the year 2007, we direct that a Review DPC be held and while considering",,

the ACR gradings of the petitioner, to exclude the ACR grading for the year 2007 and instead take into account the ACR grading of one",,

year back. Needful be done within 12 weeks from today. Needless to state, if the petitioner is found fit for promotion, he be promoted with",,

all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation etc. except back-wages being not paid, on the principle of petitioner not having",,

shouldered the responsibility for the higher post; but all other benefits of notional promotion from a back-date which would include revised,,

pay fixation would be given effect to.""",,

[25]. Thus, in all the years since 2007-2008, the petitioner has been graded as either 'outstanding' or 'very good'. Downgrading the APAR in 2016-",,

2017 to 'good' is malafide and arbitrary and the same is not in consonance with the aforesaid decision cited by the petitioner.,,

[26]. The system of APAR has two principal objectives viz., (i) improve the performance of subordinate in his present job and (ii) assess the",,

potentialities of the subordinate and prepare him through appropriate feedback and guidance for future possible opportunities in service. As rightly,,

argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner the basic philosophy underlying APAR is both the superiors and his subordinate should be necessarily,,

aware of the ultimate goal of the orgnisation, which can be achieved through the joint efforts of both of them. However, in the instant case, the 2016-",,

2017 APAR grading assessed by the reporting/reviewing authorities solves no purpose.,,

[27]. Promotion has been held to be an essential element of service and it is expected every management to provide realistic opportunities to every,,

officer for boosting their morale and rewarding them promotionally for their hard work.,,

[28]. The instructions as stated in APAR clearly spell out that the reporting authority and the reviewing authority should undertake the duty of filling,,

out the report with clarity, high sense of responsibility and objectivity. It further states that the reporting authority should bear in mind that the objective",,

of the assessment exercise is to develop an officer so that he can realise his true potential. It is not meant to be a battle but a developmental process, a",,

cumulative effort, that ensures optimal outcomes. It further lays down that it should be the endeavour of each appraisal to present the true picture the",,

performance, conduct, behavior and potential of the person being reported upon.",,

[29]. The various guidelines laid down by the DoPT from time to time, it becomes abundantly clear that neither the reporting authority nor the",,

reviewing authority, indeed not even the accepting authority can adopt an erratic and a casual approach in evaluating the overall performance of an",,

officer on the various parameters, on which he is required to be assessed. The adverse grading in the APAR has given the petitioner constant and",,

extreme stress because throughout his service the petitioner has maintained high standards of integrity, has worked with utmost dedication and",,

devotion for the organization. In the instant case, it is clear that the reporting authority, reviewing authority as well as the appellate authority have not",,

maintained the rule/instructions and procedure while writing APAR and also the grading ""good"" recorded by the authorities for the period in question is",,

without application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be excluded while considering for promotion.",,

[30]. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the APAR grading ""good"" awarded to the petitioner for the period from 23.06.2016 to 31.03.2017 is",,

set aside. Since the authorities have totally misapplied its mind, no useful purpose would be served in directing the authorities to reconsider the APAR",,

grading referred to above, this Court directs that the said year's APAR grading be excluded while considering the entitlement of the petitioner for",,

promotion and consider the case of the petitioner for his next promotion in accordance with the relevant rules. No costs.,,