Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sunand Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 June, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530
Serial No. 14
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1132/2020
CM No. 3206/2020
CM No. 3208/2020
Sunand Kumar .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate
vs
Union of India and ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC
Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
30.06.2025 ORAL
1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing Order No. R.XIII.27/2019-DA-13/(APAR) dated 14.02.2020 issued by Respondent No. 2 whereby the representation dated 02.09.2019 filed by the petitioner against Grading/Remarks in the APAR 2018-19 given by respondents 3 and 4, has been rejected, being totally illegal and contrary to the provisions of law.
(b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 2 to 4 accept the APAR 2018-19 of the petitioner by accepting the remarks "Very 2 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 good" given by the Reporting officer-Respondent No. 5 in his APAR of 2018-19.
(c) Any other relief, which this Hon‟ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper."
2. The facts under shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as are stated in the petition are that the petitioner while working as a Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (For short „CRPF‟), came to be awarded a bench mark of "Very Good" in the APAR of the year 2018-19 by the Reporting Officer being respondent 5 herein, which awarded bench mark however upon being reviewed by the Reviewing Officer, respondent 4 herein, came to be downgraded as bench mark "Good" and consequently came to be accepted by the Accepting Officer (respondent 3) herein. It is stated that upon being informed about the said downgrading of bench mark from "Very Good" to "Good" on 21.08.2019, the petitioner herein submitted a detailed representation/objections thereof on 02.09.2019 before respondent 2, which representation however came to be rejected in terms of order dated 14.02.2020 being impugned in the instant petition by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has maintained the instant petition on the following grounds:-
(a) That the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2 as also the downgraded remarks given by respondents 3 and
4 in the APAR 2018-19 of the petitioner are totally illegal, arbitrary 3 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 and contrary to the provisions of law, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed.
(b) That the Respondent No. 2 has not considered the representation made by the petitioner in its true perspective and has failed to return any cogent and convincing findings to the objections/submissions made by the petitioner in his representation while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. On this ground also, the order impugned dated 14.02.2020 deserves to be quashed.
(c) That the rejection of representation of the petitioner by Respondent No. 2 vide order impugned dated 14.02.2020 is contrary and in violation of Para 15.2 and 15.3 of the Standing Order No. 04/2015 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF. As per para 15.2 and 15.3 the representation against the remarks or for up gradation of the final grading given in the APAR should be examined by the Competent Authority, in consultation, if necessary, with the Reporting and Reviewing Officer, if any. It has further been envisaged in para 15.2 that while considering the representation, the Competent Authority should decide the matter objectively in a quasi-judicial manner on the basis of material placed before it, which would imply that the Competent Authority shall take into account the contentions of the officer who has represented against the particular remarks/grading in the APAR and the views of the Reporting and Reviewing Officer if they are still in service on the points raised in the representation vis-a-vis the remarks/grading given by them in the APAR. Para 15.2 of the Standing Order no. 4 WP(C) No. 1132/2020
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 04/2015 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF is reproduced herein below for facility of ready reference:-
"15.2 As per existing instructions, representation against the remarks or for upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR (previously known as APAR) should be examined by the Competent Authority, in consultation, if necessary, with the Reporting and Reviewing Officer, if any. While considering the representation, the Competent Authority should decide the matter objectively in a quasi-judicial manner on the basis of material placed before it. This would imply that the Competent Authority shall take into account the contentions of the officer who has represented against the particular remarks/grading in the APAR and the views of the Reporting and Reviewing Officer if they are still in service on the points raised in the representation vis-a-vis the remarks/gradings given by them in the APAR. The UPSC has informed DoPT that the Commission has observed that while deciding such representations, the competent authorities sometimes do not take into account the views of Reporting/Reviewing Officers if they are still in service. The Commission has further observed that in a majority of such cases, the Competent Authority does not specify reasons for upgrading the below benchmark APAR gradings at par with the benchmark for next promotion.
15.3 Competent authorities are therefore, requested that while forwarding such cases to them to decide on the representations against the remarks or for upgradation of the grading in the APAR that the decision on the representation may be taken objectively after taking into account the views of the concerned Reporting/Reviewing Officers if they are still in service and in case of upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR, specific reasons thereof may also be given in the order of the Competent Authority."5 WP(C) No. 1132/2020
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 From the bare perusal of the order impugned dated 14.02.2020 it clearly transpires that the Respondent No. 2 has not decided the representation of the petitioner in a quasi-judicial manner nor impugned decision on the representation of the petitioner has been taken objectively and none of the issues and grievances projected by the petitioner in his representation against the downgraded remarks given by the Respondents 3 and 4 have been dealt with exhaustively nor any findings contrary to the same have been returned. This renders the order impugned dated 14.02.2020 as highly vitiated, therefore, the same is not legally sustainable as such the same deserves to be quashed.
(d) That the order impugned dated 14.02.2020 as also the impugned degrading remarks given by respondents 3 and 4 in the APAR 2018-19 of the petitioner are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court in UP Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain (1996) 2 SCC 363 held that the reason for such a change i.e. outstanding gradation in one year followed by "satisfactory" in the succeeding-year must be recorded in the personal file and the employee must be informed of the change in the form of advice; and otherwise the downgrading cannot be sustained. The Apex Court further held that changing of outstanding to adverse should be only by a speaking order. Para 3 of the Judgment passed in UP Jal Nigam's case (Supra) reads as follows:
"3. We need to explain these observations of the High Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry is required to be 6 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 communicated to the employee concerned, but not down grading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required to be communicated. As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to „good‟ that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All that is required by the Authority recording confidential in the situation is to record reasons for such down grading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his onetime achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be communicated as such. It may be emphasized that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The down grading is reflected by comparison, This cannot sustain."
The Apex Court in State of UP vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra (1997) 4 SCC 7 held that reporting and reviewing authority have the public responsibility to write report accurately on the basis of fact and overall assessment. Para 7 of the State of UP case (Supra) reads as follows:
"7. It would, thus, be clear that the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-A (j) enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. The officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It should be founded upon facts or circumstances. Though sometimes, it may not be part of the record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. Before 7 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidentials should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct is conduct or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it corrected by appropriate representation to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and standards of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes successful tool to manage. The Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 held that whether an entry is adverse or not, depends upon its actual impact on the employee's career and not on its terminology. Even a "good" entry can be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion. In the present case, the entry i.e. "good" in the APAR of the petitioner will be adverse inasmuch as the benchmark for promotion to the post of Additional Director General is "very good'. All the gradings whether "very good", "good", "average", "fair" and "poor" required to be communicated to the employee working in Govt. offices and statutory bodies.
That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Insp/GD Krishna Rajak Vs Union of India [WP(C) 5288/2012] has held that it is not possible that a person who has been consistently graded as 'Outstanding' for so many years in the past 11 years suddenly downgraded to „Good‟ - a below benchmark grade; that too without any reasoning/ justification.
(e) That the action of the Respondent No. 4 in downgrading the APAR 2018-19 of the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of provisions of law inasmuch with a view to enabling the reviewing authority to discharge his responsibility in ensuring the objectivity of the confidential reports, where he is not sufficiently familiar with the work of the officer reported upon so as to able to arrive at a proper and independent judgment of his own, it should be his responsibility to verify the correctness of the remarks of the Reporting Officer after making such enquiries as he 8 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 may consider necessary and the Reviewing Authority should give a hearing to the person reported upon before recording his remarks.
In the instant case, the Respondent No. 4 while disagreeing with the remarks given by the Reporting Officer has completely overlooked and brushed aside this significant position of law and without there being any basis, evidence or foundation downgraded the remarks "Very Good" as given by the Reporting Officer to "Good". This irregularity committed by Respondent No. 4 and agreed upon by Respondent No. 3 caused grave and serious prejudice to the service career of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that there existed no ground which warranted such remarks from respondents 3 and 4. The Respondent No. 2 while deciding the representation of the petitioner too has not considered these illegalities and irregularities resulting in passing of the order impugned which is otherwise not legally sustainable.
(f) That the Respondent No. 2 has failed to appreciate that the Reviewing Authority Respondent No. 4 without any valid justification has disagreed with the assessment of the Reporting Officer Respondent No. 5 in a single word "NO" without specifying any reason for such disagreement. For such negative remark the Respondent No. 4 was obliged under law to give reasonable justification for such disagreement. In absence of any valid and reasonable justification, the disagreement made by Respondent No. 4 is not legally sustainable. This aspect of the matter has been clearly overlooked by the Respondent No. 2, 9 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 though specifically and categorically pleaded by the petitioner in his representation, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. On this ground also, the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 deserves to be quashed.
(g) That Respondent No. 5 Reporting Officer in the APAR 2018- 19 of the petitioner have given the remarks to the effect that "An intelligent, Sincere, obedient, hardworking, disciplined, polite and energetic officer. Takes keen interest in his assigned tasks. Maintain cordial relations with his colleagues and seniors Officer also performed the additional duties of Coordinator, CRPF Everest Expedition and supervised the Expedition Team. His overall performance remains Very Good." These remarks and observations of Reporting Officer Respondent No. 5 have not been countered and demolished by the Respondent No. 4 - Reviewing Authority with any material documentary or otherwise. Disagreement of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 3 with the remarks/observations of Respondent No. 5 is based upon no material evidence and disagreement has been made in a totally arbitrary manner just to cause grave prejudice to the service career of the petitioner, therefore, the Respondent No. 2 while considering the representation of the petitioner ought to have considered this crucial aspect of the matter and should have allowed the representation of the petitioner by expunging the remark "Good" and by giving "very good" in concurrence with the Reporting Authority.
10 WP(C) No. 1132/2020
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530
(h) That the Respondent No. 2 has decided the representation filed by the petitioner beyond the period prescribed in the Standing Order 04/2015. As per the provisions of Para 13(vi), representation filed by the petitioner was required to be decided within 30 days as per the provisions of Para 13(vi) of the Standing Order No. 04/2015. Para 13(vi) reads as under:-
"The Competent Authority for considering adverse remarks under the existing instructions may consider the representation, if necessary, in consultation with the reporting and/or reviewing officer and shall decide the matter objectively based on the material placed before him within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the representation."
As the representation was submitted by the petitioner on 2nd of September 2019, the same should have been decided on before 2nd October, 2019. However, the representation of the petitioner has been decided, rejected by Respondent No. 2 on 14th February, 2020 after a delay of more than 4 months. This delay again renders the order impugned highly vitiated such delay has visited he petitioner with adverse consequences; as such the same deserves to be quashed.
(i) That the petitioner in his representation dated 02.09.2019 made a specific request/prayer to the effect that the issue involved in his representation having serious implications on his career, therefore, the petitioner be permitted 'Personal Hearing'. However, the said prayer/submission of the petitioner was not considered at all by Respondent No. 2 while considering the representation and denied the opportunity of hearing and representation has been rejected without properly evaluating the grounds urged by the petitioner in his representation. Copy of the representation is marked Annexure- VI.
(j) That the respondent No. 2 while deciding the representation of the petitioner vide order impugned dated 14.02.2020 has failed to 11 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 appreciate that the accepting authority has downgraded the APAR without indicating any defects or deficiencies in the qualities of work/performance and conduct during the period under report. The respondent No. 2 has further failed to consider that due to exceptional qualities and performance, the petitioner has been graded as 'Outstanding‟ for the last periodicity 2017-18. There cannot be any sudden downfall in the performance of the petitioner, when no such deficiency/short-coming/inadequacy ever brought to the notice of the petitioner by any of the authority at any point of time during the period under report. Further the petitioner has also been consistently graded as 'Outstanding' in the past and 08 out of 11 APARs in the Commandant Rank are graded as 'Outstanding'. The remark of the Accepting Authority enigmatically inconsistent to the assessment made by the Accepting Authorities over the years. Such profile signifies that downgrading is not based upon any valid justification. It also appears that the Accepting Officer has not taken into consideration the 'Memorandum of Service' for the period under report before recording his remarks.
(k) That the order impugned dated 14.02.2020 is not a speaking order inasmuch as the Respondent No. 2 has not dealt with the comments offered by the Reviewing Officer [Respondent No 4 & Accepting Authority (Respondent 3] to the objection raised by petitioner. The objections raised and agitation made by the petitioner in his representation has not at all been dealt with point- 12 WP(C) No. 1132/2020
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 wise-point by the Respondent No. 2 nor any specific findings returned. The order impugned dated 14.02.2020, therefore, is perfectly a reasonless and non-speaking order. The considerations are the requirements of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision- making. However, it is not required that the reasons should be elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The object underlying the rules of natural justice; "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". The requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi- judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making." Detailed submissions on this count shall be respectfully urged before the court of hearing.
(l) That viewed from any angle, the order impugned dated 14.02.2020 is totally illegal and violative of fundamental and service rights of the petitioner, therefore, the same is not legally sustainable.
13 WP(C) No. 1132/2020
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530
(m) That the additional or alternate grounds of challenge may be allowed to be urged at the time of hearing.
4. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents wherein it is being admitted that the APAR of the petitioner while being posted as Commandant of GC, CRPF, New Delhi for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2018 upto 31.03.2019 (Year 2018-19) came to be assessed as "Very Good" by the Initiating Officer and "Good" by the Reviewing Officer as well as the Accepting Officer, in that it came to be observed by the Reviewing Officer that the duties/responsibilities accomplished by the petitioner were routine duties and no exceptional or outstanding work was performed by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner did not brought out any exceptional work done by him for the year 2018- 19 and as such, the petitioner‟s APAR could not have been graded as "Very Good", as such, both the Reviewing and Accepting Officers downgraded the bench mark grading of the petitioner from "Very Good" to "Good". It is further stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the said downgrading upon being considered by respondent 2 herein, was found to be devoid of any merit and consequently came to be rejected in terms of order dated 14.02.2020. It is further stated in the reply that although it is the duty of every Reporting/Reviewing and Accepting Officer to make an objective assessment of the reported officer qua his work and qualities, the Reviewing and Accepting Officer in terms of S.O. 04/2015 issued by the Director General, CRPF pertaining to preparation and maintenance of Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of officers, it was 14 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 found that the Reporting Officer had overrated the petitioner and had without any basis and supporting material, graded the petitioner as "Very Good" and as such, the Reviewing and Accepting Authorities upon their own assessment about the performance of the petitioner, disagreed with the assessment made by the Reporting Officer qua the petitioner and consequently conveyed the said reassessment and downgrading to the petitioner, whereupon the petitioner submitted a representation thereof, which after being considered by the competent authority, respondent 2 herein, came to be rightly rejected. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is significant to mention here that in terms of S.O. 04/2015 (supra) besides providing a full fledged mechanism qua writing of an APAR under Clause 11 provides the following categorization of grading, to be made by the Initiating, Reviewing and Accepting authorities:-
(a) Outstanding
(b) Very Good
(c) Good
(d) Below Good
6. It is not in dispute that for the year 2018-19, the petitioner came to be graded as "Very Good" by the Initiating/Reporting Officer on the basis of self appraisal contained in Part „II‟ of the APAR, appraisal contained in Part „III‟ of the APAR inasmuch as personal data contained in Para „I‟ of the APAR. Record would also reveal that the Reporting Officer in Part „IV‟ of the APAR while assessing the work output of the petitioner consisting of Accomplishment of planned 15 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 work/work allotted as per subjects allotted, Quality of output, Analytical ability, Accomplishment of exceptional work/unforeseen tasks performed, Knowledge of sphere of work and Innovative ability to enhance Ops performance, awarded 46 points to the petitioner, whereas, the Reviewing Officer for the said work output, slashed down the said 46 points to 33.6 points.
Record would also reveal that while assessing the personal attributes of the petitioner consisting of Attitude of work, Sense of responsibility, Maintenance of Discipline, Communication skills, Leadership qualities, Disposal of grievances, Achieving targets in time, Inter-personal relations, Aptitude and potential and Liasion with State and other agencies, awarded 77 points to the petitioner which however came to be slashed down by the Reviewing authority to 56 points.
Similarly, the Initiating/Reporting authority while assessing the Functional Competency of the petitioner has awarded 47 points to the petitioner for Knowledge of Rules/Regulations/Procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly, Strategic planning ability, Decision-making ability, Co-ordination ability, Ability to motivate and develop subordinates and Initiative, whereas, the Reviewing authority has slashed down the said 47 points awarded to the petitioner by the Initiating/reporting authority to 33.6 points. Further perusal of the APAR in question would reveal that the Initiating Officer in Part „V‟ of the said APAR while assessing overall 16 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 qualities of the petitioner upon summing up pen-picture of the petitioner, assessed the petitioner as under:-
"An intelligent, Sincere, obedient, hardworking, disciplined polite and energetic officer. Takes keen interest in his assigned tasks.
Maintains cordial relations with his colleagues and seniors. Officer also performed the additional duties of Coordinator CRPF Everest Expedition and supervised the Expedition team. His overall performance remains „Very Good‟."
7. Before proceeding further in the matter, a reference to the position of law pertaining to writing of the APR of employees would be relevant. The consistent view of the Apex Court has been in the series of judgments including in case titled as 'S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa' reported in 1994(3) SCC 424 that the writing an APR has to be objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner, in that, in certain services the career prospects of the officer/employee largely depends upon the work and character assessment made by the Reporting Officer and in the event the APR‟s are not written constructively by adopting fair, objective, dispassionate, the prospects and career of such an officer/employee would be put to great jeopardy. It has also been held that the writing of APRs objectively and constructively would pave a way for an erring officer/employee to improve the efficiency in the service.
The positive case set up by the petitioner in the instant petition while calling in question the impugned order is that on account of his downgrading from "Very Good" to "Good" both by the Reviewing 17 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 and Accepting Officers as in a sense render him ineligible for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Director General as the bench mark of „Good‟ is treated as below bench mark grade for such promotion.
It has been held in case titled as 'State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra' reported in 1997 (4) SCC 7 and in case titled as 'U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain' reported in 1996 (2) SCC 363 that if graded entry in an APAR of an employee is going a step down like falling from „Very Good‟ to „Good‟ and though that may ordinarily be not an adverse entry since both being a positive grading, yet law enjoins upon the authorities Reviewing/Accepting APAR‟s in such a situation are bound to record reasons for such downgrading and also to inform the employee of the change.
8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and having regard to record available on the file, it is manifest that both the Reviewing as well as the Accepting Officers while downgrading the petitioner from „Very Good‟ to „Good‟ have not done so objectively, fairly, and reasonably so much so no reasons have been recorded in this regard, in that, law is also settled that reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity and the absence of reasons renders an order indefensible inasmuch as unsustainable as the recording of reasons has been held to be one of the fundamental principles of natural justice and the recording of reasons has been held to ensure transparency and fairness in decision making. Record would also tend to show that even the mechanism provided in S.O. 4/2015 has been observed in breach. 18 WP(C) No. 1132/2020
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 It is significant to mention here that this Court is not oblivious to the position of law that ordinarily a Court exercising writ jurisdiction would not interfere in the matter of APARs be it recording of adverse remarks or downgrading of bench marks, yet law is no more res integra and stands settled that the jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is not excluded and the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere when there is infringement of rule or guideline or there is a case of malice or the case is unfounded or a case of arbitrariness.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have grossly erred and in essence have acted in breach of S.O. 04/2015 inasmuch as arbitrarily, thus necessitating the remanding of the matter back for reconsideration.
10. Viewed thus, for aforesaid reasons, the petition succeeds as a consequence whereof, the decision of the Reviewing/Accepting Authority of the APARs of the petitioner for the year 2018-19 is quashed including the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 leaving it open to the Reviewing/Accepting Authority to revisit and re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh qua the APAR of 2018-19 in accordance with law and the applicable Rules. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken and concluded by the concerned respondents/Authorities preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before 19 WP(C) No. 1132/2020 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1530 the respondents, whereafter, decision so arrived at by the respondents shall be conveyed to the petitioner.
11. Disposed of.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Jammu 30.06.2025 Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No