Tushar Ranjan Mohanty vs Union Of India Through And Anr

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant filed this OA feeling aggrieved by the office memorandum dated 22.09.2016. The facts leading to the memorandum are that the applicant was working in the year 2016 as Deputy Director General in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. For the period 01.04.2014 to 22.09.2014, he did not submit his self-appraisal for the APAR. The reporting officer gave the overall grading of 7, out of 10, and rated him as "Very Good". The reviewing officer who worked at the relevant point of time retired, and a "no review" certificate was issued. The accepting authority rated him "Good" by giving him 5, out of 10 marks.

The applicant submitted a representation against the "below benchmark" grading in the APAR for the said period, to the competent authority. After inviting comments from the concerned authorities, the competent authority rejected the representation, and maintained the grading of the APAR for the said period. Hence, this OA.

The applicant contends that the accepting authority was not justified in downgrading his appraisal to 5, i.e., "Good", when the reporting authority rated him as "Very Good" with 7 out of 10 marks. It is also stated that though several grounds were pleaded in the representation, the competent authority did not take the same into account, and mechanically rejected the representation.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the OA. According to them, there was a serious lapse on the part of the applicant himself, since he did not submit the self-appraisal. It is stated that in the absence of the self-appraisal by the concerned employee, it would be difficult for the officers in the hierarchy to express their views on his performance, and that the accepting authority has taken a correct view of the matter. It is also stated that the competent authority has not only called for the remarks of the concerned officer, but also examined the matter in detail, and passed the impugned order.

The applicant argued the case in person, and Shri R. V. Sinhg, learned counsel, argued on behalf of the respondents.

The appraisal in the APAR of an employee, particularly those in the higher level of administration, happens to be an important step or event. The appraisals in the APARs for the successive years constitute the basis for the extension of promotion or other benefits. Obviously, for that reason, an employee scrupulously and religiously submits self-appraisal within the stipulated time, duly indicating all his achievements and accomplishments in the service for that period. The information provided by him would constitute the basis for the reporting and reviewing officers to form their opinions. It is a different matter that the accepting authority need not be guided by the information furnished in the self-appraisal alone. At the same time, the importance of the self-appraisal cannot be ignored.

There may be cases where an officer who is otherwise willing to submit the self-appraisal, may have been prevented from doing so for any reasons, and in such cases, efforts can be made to overcome the deficiency. In the instant case, however, the applicant is a person who undertakes extensive correspondence running into hundreds of pages on any issue, small or big, within the department, and he has to his credit, several hundreds of legal proceedings in the form of OAs, Writ Petitions and SLPs. His ACR for almost every year or part thereof, is the subject matter of extensive correspondence, if not legal proceedings.

The DoP&T issued guidelines from time to time indicating the manner in which an APAR shall be prepared in the absence of the self-appraisal. The applicant is not able to point out that any such specific instruction or guideline has not been followed in his case.

The next question is as regards the discretion of the accepting authority vis-à-vis the APAR of a particular period. The very purpose of providing for a separate measure of acceptance is to enable the concerned authority to express its view regarding the officer, who is the subject matter of the APAR. It is only when a clear bias or mala fides are pleaded that a possibility may exist to interfere with the assessment made by the officers at various stages.

In the instant case, the accepting authority made the following comments in support of his evaluation of the applicant:

"The officer has not submitted his self appraisal. In respect of integrity, the Reporting Officer, has stated that "there are a few vigilance cases pending against him". Sh. T. R. Mohanty is intelligent and innovative, as has been recorded by the Reporting Officer. However, his whimsical and unpredictable attitude to work and responsibilities causes certain dilatation in efficiency and at times sudden impediments. He would prove to be very good in case he improves in this arena. Overall I would rate him as a "Good" Officer."

It is necessary to mention here that the reporting authority in a mechanical way awarded 7 marks to the 23 attributes in the APAR, and gave the grading of "Very Good".In the column pertaining to the integrity of the officer, he observed, "There are a few vigilance cases pending against him". The pen-picture of the reporting authority reads, "The officer is intelligent and innovative. The work assigned to him was completed in time. He is positive towards weaker sections. I rate him as very good."

It is highly debatable as to whether this assessment can be said to be compatible, particularly no description of any work was furnished, and pendency of vigilance cases was noticed.

By the time, the representation of the applicant was considered by the competent authority, the reporting authority was not available for comments, since he retired. There was no occasion to invite the comments of the reviewing authority since "no review" certificate was enclosed. The accepting authority offered his comments as under:

"1. The details of the representation made by Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG and the related facts and decisions have been brought out by the Admn in its notes at pages 29/ante onwards.

Non-submission of APAR by Sh. Mohanty has been established from the enquiry of Sh. G.C. Manna, DG (I/C). Non submission of self-appraisal in APAR is per se adverse.

The contention of Sh. Mohanty, that his APAR should be declared non-est, merits rejection, in view of the orders of the Hon"ble Minister mentioned in para-8 at page 30/ante, Shri Mohanty, being negligent in submission of self-appraisal in his APAR, cannot take advantage of his negligence in this way.

His reference to "vigilance case" and "disciplinary proceedings" are irrelevant.

The language and tenor of the representation highlight his whimsical approach to official work.

Hon"ble Minister may kindly consider."

It is on the basis of this and the other material on record, that the Hon"ble Minister, i.e., the competent authority, made the following observation:

"I have gone through the representation given by Shri T.R. Mohanty and also the comments of the Secretary. After going through the same I am of the opinion that the representation of the petitioner may be rejected."

We are convinced that there was an objective and independent consideration of the representation of the applicant. Though it is argued that the Minister did not assign reasons in support of his conclusions, we cannot expect a more elaborate statement of reasons than what is contained in the impugned order.

We do not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.