Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pramodh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police on 24 March, 2026
OA No.2432-2022
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2432/2022
Order reserved on 12.03.2026
Order pronounced on 24.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Pramodh Kumar,
Sub Insp.(Exe) Delhi Police
PIS No.16140335, aged 44 years
S/o Sh. Narayana Rao
R/o H.No.16-I-I/I, Laxman Nagar
Undrajavaram Road, Tanuku:534 211,
West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh
Group 'C' (presently posted at III Battalion
DAP, Vikaspuri, Delhi)
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Applicant in person)
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others
1. The GNCT of Delhi
(Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi)
Delhi Police Headquarters,
New PHQ Building
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Asst. Commissioner of Police (SDPO)
Mayur Vihar, East Distrct,
Delhi-110091.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
East District Mandawali Fazalpur,
Patparganj Road, IP Extension
Delhi-110091.
4. The Addl. Commissioner of Police/AP-I
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp
New Delhi-110009.
...Respondents
JUGALJUGAL
KISHORE
KISHO 2026.03.25
14:09:06
RE +05'30'
OA No.2432-2022
2
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA, the applicant seeks following reliefs:-
i) That this Tribunal summons the records from the respondents. Relating to APAR for the period in question and applicant be allowed inspection of the APAR and other connecting documents.
ii) To quash and set aside the APAR (Annexure-A1) & the appellate order (Annexure-A2) being illegal and issue direction to the respondents to grade the applicant as "Out Standing" based on actual performance in the self-
assessment of APAR.
iii) To declare that (Annexure-A1) APAR and the appellate order in (Annexure-A2) shall not be a bar for considering the applicant for promotion or for entitlement for financial upgradation under MACP and also for any other purpose relating to the service.
iv) To allow the O.A.
v) Award cost of the proceedings and pass such other and
further orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
2. The applicant is aggrieved that the Reviewing Officer rejected his representation regarding the upgradation of remarks in the APAR for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019, through a cryptic and uninformative order. 2.1 The said order culminates from the APAR for the part-reporting period from 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019. The said APAR in question reads as follows:
ANNEXURE-AI A180127-188-0007 JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 3 DELHI POLICE DEPARTMENT Form of Confidential Report on Inspectors, Sub-inspectors and Asstt. Sub-Inaprs. (Executive) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: EAST DISTRICT: DELHI Period of report 01.04.19 to 31.1019 PIS No. 16140335 PART-1
1. Rank, Name & No. SI(Exe.) Pramod Kumar, D-5326
2. Date of Birth: 01.04.1978 3. Height: 183 cms
4. Weight: 90 Kg 5. Chest. 80 cm 6. Waist. 36"
7. Health: Excellent/Very Good/Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
8. Present post and date of appointment thereto:
9. Period of Report: 01-04-19 to 31-10-19
10. Place of posting: P.S. MAYURVIHAR, PART-II SELF ASSESSMENT : (To Be filled By The Officer Reported Upon) (A) Please specify 8 to 10 targets/goals/objectives that were set for you and task assigned to you in order of priority.
1) INVESTIGATION OFFICER OF MAJOR CRIMES & SPRING OFFENCES
2) EMERGENCY Officer
3) ATTENDED HIGH COURT&DISCTRIC COURTS ON BEHALF OF SHO
4. CENT PERCENT DISPOSAL OF COMPLAINTS VIZ CMTS/PHMS/TIMED/VIP JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 4
5) TIMELY DISPOSAL OF CASE FILES TO COURT.
6) WATER TIGHT CHMAR SHEET SHEETS & REPLY TO BAIL APPLICATION IN CASES OF OTHER IO'S FUNTIOEN ALLOTED TO THE UNDERSIANED FONABLING ACCUSED PERSONS NO LEEWAY
7) NIL GRIEVANCE/ COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE UNOFASIANE IN INVESTIGATION OF FERS & FANQUINIES IN COMPLAINTS.
8) LAW AN ORDER DUTIES / ARRANGEMENT DUTIES
9) DIVISIONAL OFFICER DUTIES (B) Were you able to achieve the above mentioned goals/tasks assigned to you? YES (C) In case of shortfalls, reasons thereof. NA (D) Any special improvements/achievements by you in your area of duty. CENTPERCENT DESEO-OF CASE FILES WITH APPLICATION OF RULE OF LAW WETIO ELAN EN TIME BOUND MANNER. ZERO TIME FOR CASES ENSURED PART-III (To Be filled by the Reporting Authority)
1. How far do you agree with the report of NOT AT ALL (DE the officer reported upon in Part-II. initiation)
2. Honesty Average
3. Moral Character Average
4. Dealing with the public and accessibility Below Average to the public
5. Impartiality/objectivity Below Average
6. Gender Sensitivity Average
7. Attitude towards weaker section of Below Average society
8. Devotion to duty Below Average
9. General power of control & organizing Below Average ability
10. Personality and Initiative Below Average
11. Power of command Average
12. Attitude to modernization techniques of Average investigation and in modern police methods generally JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 5
13. Preventive and detective ability Below Average (DE initiated)
14. Working experience of criminal law and Average procedure
15. Reliability Below Average
16. Efficiency on Parade Not texted
17. Overall assessment:- Below Average
18. Punishment: Major/Minor May be Lad from HAP
19. Contribution towards developing Police Below Average Community relations
20. Grading: Outstanding/Very Below Average (DE Good/Good/Average/Below Average initiated) (OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE GRADED OUTSTANDING UNLESS EXCEPTIONAL QUALITIES AND PERFORMANCE HAVE BEEN NOTICED, GROUNDS FOR GIVING SUCH A GRADING SHOULD BE CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT) Sd/-
(Signature of the Reporting Authority) Name (In Block letters)- SAURABH CHANDRA Designation- Asstt. Commissioner of Police PART-IV (Remarks of the Reviewing Officer) The Reviewing Officer should carefully consider and state whether he accepts the assessment recorded by the Reporting Officer in all respects. If he differs from the Reporting Officer in any respect, the fact should be clearly stated."
SD/-
(Reviewing Officer) 2.2 It has been specifically urged by the applicant in person that, on the face of it, the Reviewing Officer has not applied his mind and has failed to assign any reasons for the assessment recorded by the Reporting Officer. 2.3 On March 16, 2021, while posted at III Battalion DAP, Vikaspuri, the applicant received a copy of the Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 6 (Annexure A-1) for the period of April 1 to October 31, 2019, when he was posted at Police Station Mayur Vihar, East District. 2.4 Upon perusal of the said APAR, the Applicant was shocked to observe adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer in Part-III and Part-IV respectively, which were contrary to the self-assessment recorded by the Applicant in Part-II of the APAR. 2.5 The Applicant submitted that the Reporting Officer did not record any valid reasons or grounds for disagreeing with the Applicant's self-assessment. Consequently, the remarks in the APAR were arbitrary and lacked a proper basis.
2.6 Aggrieved by these adverse remarks, the Applicant submitted a representation on March 24, 2021 (page 18, Annexure A-3), requesting an upgrade of the remarks recorded in the APAR. 2.7 Since no decision was made on the representation within the specified time, the Applicant submitted a second representation on June 19, 2021. This requested the competent authority to expedite the decision on his earlier representation, emphasizing the excessive delay. 2.8 Subsequently, on September 1, 2021, the Applicant received the final outcome of his representation. This outcome indicated that the request for upgradation of remarks in the APAR was rejected (page 16, Annexure A-2). The decision was communicated after a delay of more than five months, JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 7 despite the prescribed period for disposal of such representations being thirty days.
2.9 The Appellate Authority's sole reason for rejecting the representation was that a regular Departmental Enquiry (DE) had been initiated against the Applicant for alleged shortcomings in investigation. Additionally, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year (page 26, Annexure A-
5), without evaluating the reasons for punishment in the D.E. 2.10 He placed reliance on the OM dated 16.02.2009, highlighting that both the respondents and the Reporting Officer failed to ensure the timely preparation and proper maintenance of ACRs, as previously noted. 2.11 In support of his claim, he relied upon following case laws of Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Misra, (1997) 4 SCC 7 reads as thus:-
"Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidential 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, behavior, integrity of conduct corrupt proclivity. If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his 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 JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 8 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 standard of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty, efficiency and devotion."
2.12 He further relied upon the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2021/2022 - Union of India and Ors. Versus G.R. Meghwal, which reads as under:
"8.1 The Tribunal has also noted that adverse remarks were not communicated to the respondent herein within the time limits prescribed for such communication under the prevailing rules governing the ACRs. Further attention of the officer was not drawn during the year itself, to supposed falling standards along with necessary caution/advice so as to give him a chance to improve. The Tribunal has further noted that not the case of below benchmark grading but a case of recording adverse remarks in the extreme. That the representations made by the respondent were not considered objectively, dispassionately, and fairly as there were contradiction in the qualities or attributes communicated in the said ACRs which were wholly contradictory to each other. In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that "adverse remarks made for the year 2007-08 were sweeping, extreme, and inconsistent with the previous remarks. Hence it was held that the rejection of the representation was unjustified and the same was set aside. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the assessment of 2007-08 were clearly arbitrary and inconsistent and ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 9 proper assessment of the respondent by the Screening Committee for his suitability to be promoted to a higher grade. Hence, a direction was issued to the Screening Committee to consider and reassess the suitability of the respondent herein for the purpose of grant of SAG by excluding the ACR of 2007-08 and if the respondent was found suitable for grant of consequential benefits. Against the order of the Tribunal the Union of India, the appellant herein preferred a writ petition before the High Court, which reiterated what had been observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of its order and dismissed the writ petition.
9. On perusal of what has been extracted by the Tribunal from the ACRS of 2005-06, we note that the respondent has been graded as "Very Good" since he has very good knowledge in technical field as well as of administrative matters; willing to assume responsibility; has good organizing capability; motivating ability and timely and proper guidance giving capability. The respondent has the capacity/resourcefulness to anticipate problems in advance as well as unforeseen situations. He has very good quality decision-making ability and is able to weigh pros and cons of alternatives and good capability of communication and present arguments in oral and written manner and good skill and capacity of evaluating and recording performance of subordinates in an impartial and objective manner.
Similarly in the remarks for the year 2006-07, it has been written that the respondent has very good technical knowledge as well as administrative knowledge. He has very good organizing capacity and was able to motivate and provide timely and proper guidance to subordinates. He has good skill and capacity in evaluating and recording performance of subordinates in an impartial and objective manner.
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 10 As against the aforesaid favorable remarks for the previous years, in the year 2007-08 it has been stated that though the technical knowledge of the respondent is good, his financial and administrative knowledge is poor; that he has hardly understood the environment in anticipating change; that he was never willing to assume responsibility. and had poor organizing capacity and cannot anticipate problems and unforeseen situations and does not take additional responsibility and has poor decision-making quality and average ability in communication and presenting case problems.
10. Therefore, in view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that though the respondent was graded as "Very Good" in the ACRs for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and was graded only "Good" in the ACR for the year 2007-2008 by the very same reporting and reviewing officer, despite the fact that specifically the respondent was given the opportunity against the ACR for the year 2007- 2008. However, no valid reasons are given for rejecting the representation, we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal and the High Court have not committed any error in directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess the suitability of the respondent for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR for the year 2007-2008. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this Court is called for.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed."
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 11 2.13. He also relies upon the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2160/2017.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, counsel for the respondents, relying upon the averments contained in the counter-affidavit, vehemently urged that the APARs in question were rendered by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer in consonance with the rules based on the factual service record.
3.1 He highlighted that the applicant's facts and service records show the case involves SI (Exe.). Pramodh Kumar, No. D/5326 (PIS No. 16140335) remained posted in East District, Delhi during the period 11.10.2017 to 06.01.2020.
3.2 A departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant vide order No. 5380-98/HAP(P-1)/East District, dated 13.11.2019 on the allegations that while posted at PS Mayur Vihar, he had not finalized pending investigation cases even after providing sufficient opportunities to do the same in review of PI cases. Instead of giving a satisfactory reason for the delay, the applicant replied advertently and undisciplined manner. During scrutiny of his files, several pending investigation shortcomings were noticed which he has done either intentionally or due to unwarranted reasons best known to him. 3.3 The following shortcomings were noticed by ACP/Mayur Vihar:-case
1. Instructions of worthy Joint CP/ER to SI, in case FIR No. 142/2019 u/s 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC on 11.07.2019 have not been complied with.
2. SI (Exe.) Pramodh Kumar, No. D/5326 has prepared charge sheet in case FIR No. 142/2017 u/s 363/366/364/354-A/506/509 IPC read with 10/12/21 POCSO Act after keeping co-accused Gulfam (as alleged by JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 12 victim) in column No. 12 instead of column No. 11 in spite of objections by Prosecution Branch and statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The same charge sheet was found removed from case file too.
3. SI (Exe.) Pramodh Kumar, No. D/5326 has prepared cancellation report in case FIR No.31/2019 u/s 420/406 IPC without verifying documents, mode of transaction and cash with complainant.
4. Despite having knowledge of original minutes register is already under police procession, he again raised misdirected queries in case FIR No. 165/2017 u/s 468/471/120-B IPC to school authorities to unnecessarily linger on with the investigation.
5. He had submitted 29 case files to MHC(R)/PS Mayur Vihar on 29.07.2019 but on 31.07.2019. he had taken back 03 case files of FIR No. 142/2017, 142/2019 and 178/2019 from record room.
6. No case diaries were found attached with case FIR No. 178/2019 and 142/2019.
That for the above misconduct, the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 29.07.2019 vide order No. 3389- 3405/HAP (P-I)/East District, dated 30.07.2019. Later on, he was re- instated from suspension with immediate effect vide order No. 5504- 16/HAP(P-I)/East District, dated 15.11.2019 without prejudice to the disciplinary enquiry pending against him on the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee of East District, Delhi. 3.4 The applicant reported to 3rd Bn. DAP, Vikas Puri Police Lines, Delhi, on October 29, 2020, after transferring from another Delhi Police Unit. Shri Saurbh Chandra, then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division, Seelampur, Delhi, recorded the applicant's APAR as "Below Average" for April 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019, on July 11, 2020. Shri Jasmeet Singh, then DCP/East District, Delhi, accepted this assessment as the reviewing officer.
3.5 Further, The APAR of the applicant for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019 has been received from East District to 3rd Bn. DAP vide No. JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 13 303-10/CA/DCP/East District, dated 27.02.2020 for disclosure to the applicant in pursuance of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOPT) memo. No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt.-II) dated 14.5.2009. 3.6 The APAR was provided to the applicant on March 16, 2021, and he had the option to submit a written response regarding the Performance Appraisal Report to the competent authority within 15 days of receiving it. 4 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS:
5.1 on May 14, 2009, the Government of India, through its Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, issued an official memorandum (OM) detailing guidelines for the upkeep and creation of Annual Appraisal Reports. These guidelines mandate the communication of all entries, aiming to ensure fairness and transparency within public administration. The said OM reads as under:-
"No. 21011/1/2005-Estt (A) (Pt-II) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) North Block, New Delhi, 14 May, 2009 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Maintenance and preparation of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports communication of all entries for fairness and transparency in public administration.
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 14 The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the Ministries/Departments to the existing provisions in regard to preparation and maintenance of Annual Confidential Reports which inter-alia provide that only adverse remarks should be communicated to the officer reported upon for representation, if any. The Supreme Court has held in their judgement dated 12.5.2008 in the case of Dev Dutt vs Union of India (Civil Appeal No.7631 of 2002) that the object of writing the confidential report and making entries is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve the performance. The 2 Administrative Reforms Commission in their 10" Report has also recommended that the performance appraisal system for all services be made more consultative and transparent on the lines of the PAR of the All India Services.
2. Keeping in view the above position, the matter regarding communication of entries in the ACRs in the case of civil services under the Government of India has been further reviewed and the undersigned is directed to convey the following decisions of the Government-
(i) The existing nomenclature of the Annual Confidential Report will be modified as Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR).
(ii) The full APAR including the overall grade and assessment of integrity shall be communicated to the concerned officer after the Report is complete with the remarks of the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority wherever such system is in vogue. Where Government servant has only one supervisory level above him as in the case of personal staff attached to officers, such communication shall be made after the reporting officer has completed the performance assessment.
(iii) The Section entrusted with the maintenance of APARs after its receipt shall disclose the same to the officer reported upon.
(iv) The concerned officer shall be given the opportunity to make any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the Report within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries in the APAR. The representation shall be restricted to the specific factual observations contained in the report leading to assessment of the officer in terms of attributes, work output etc. While communicating the entries, it sha be made clear that in case no representation is received within the fifteen days, it sha be deemed that he/she has no representation to make. If the concerned APAR Secti does not receive any information from the concerned officer on or before fifteen da from the date of disclosure, the APAR will be treated as final.
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 15 ACR (V) The new system of communicating the entries in the APAR shall be made applicable prospectively only with effect from the reporting period 2008-09 which is to be initiated after 1" April 2009.
(vi) 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.
(vii) The competent authority after due consideration may reject the representation or may accept and modify the APAR accordingly. The decision of the competent authority and the final grading shall be communicated to the officer reported upon within fifteen days of receipt of the decision of the competent authority by the concerned APAR Section.
To
3. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring to the notice of all the offices under them for strict implementation of the above instructions.
(C.A. Subramanian) Director All Ministries/Departments of Government of India Copy to:-
1. Chief Secretaries of All State Governments/U.T.s
2. The President's Secretariat, New Delhi."
3. The Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi.
4. The Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi.
5. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
6. The Lok Sabha Secretariat.
7. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi.
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 16
8. The Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi. Copy also to:-
(a) All Attached offices under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
Establishment Officer and Secretary, ACC (10 copies). All officers and Sections in the Department of Personnel and Training. Secretary, Staff Side, National Council (JCM), 13-C, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi.
(e) All Staff Members of Departmental Council (JCM). All Staff members of the Departmental Council (JCM), Ministry of Personnel, Pu Grievances and Pensions. NIC (DoP&T) for placing the Office Memorandum on the web-site of DoP&T.
(h) Hindi Section for Hindi version of the O.M." 5.2 Coming to the observations made by the Reporting Officer as quoted and highlighted above, it is noted that the manner in which the APAR has been written is primarily based on the premise that a DE (Departmental Enquiry) has already been initiated, without making any reference to the specific date of initiation. It appears to us that the observations were made with a predetermined mind, as if the applicant were already guilty under departmental proceedings. Additionally, the self-assessment in Part-II does not align with the self-appraisal form the applicant submitted. No documentation shows that the applicant received any notice to improve efficiency before the APAR was recorded.
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 17 5.3 Well-settled law establishes that assessment based on an APAR aims to improve the official's efficiency; if the applicant is at fault, it cannot be treated as impunity without guidance. 5.4 In W.P.(C) 16171/2025 -GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS versus SH. RAJENDRA SINGH RAWAT decided on 17.10.2025 , the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also observed as under :-
"13. It is trite law, that the APAR plays very vital part in the service jurisprudence. In this regard, we may make a reference of the Judgement of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, (1996) 8 SCC 762, wherein it was opined as under:
"...The object of writing the confidential report is twofold, i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. This Court inDelhi Transport Corpn. case[Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] pointed out the pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to lack of objectives by the controlling officer. Confidential and character reports should, therefore, be written by superior officers higher above the cadres. The officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with the highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. Therefore, they should be written by a superior officer of high rank..."
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 18
14. The same was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra, (1997) 4 SCC 7, which reads as under:-
"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 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 his 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 JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 19 forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and standard of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty, efficiency and devotion."
15. In this regard, we may also note the observation made by this Court in Sh. Sandeep Dhaka v. Union Of India & Ors., 2025:DHC:623-DB, which reads as under:-
"7. At the outset, we would note that an APAR performs a very vital function for not only the assessment of an officer for his career progression, but also to inform him of his shortcomings and areas where he needs to improve. The aim of writing APARs is to have an objective assessment of an individual's professional and personal qualities, competence, personality, integrity, and employability, and to provide the individual appropriate feedback and guidance for correcting his deficiencies, and to improve his performance to serve the interest of enhancing efficiency of the Force. The assessment report of a Government employee is a privileged document, which involves a tremendous responsibility on the part of the Reporting and the Reviewing Authorities, and therefore, it is essential that the APAR is filled with due care and attention, and that the said task is not casually undertaken."
5.5 We also take note of the decision rendered in OA No. 454/2015 by this Tribunal, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"10. Insofar as first of the issues is concerned, we begin our examination as to how APARS are written; what is the purpose of recording of ACRs/APARs and how the judicial pronouncements help to develop the subject. This issue has been examined in depth by Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors.[OA No. 673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007 and by the JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 20 Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Gunjan Prasad versus Govt. of India OA No. 1233/2014 decided on 28.04.2015, Devendra Swaroop Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors. [OA No.4258/2013 decided on 19.12.2014]. The controversy in these cases had gone into the purpose of recording ACRs on the basis of various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the decision in Gunjan Prasad versus Govt. of India (supra) is being extracted herein below:-
"21. In the case of Devendra Swaroop Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No 4258/2013 decided on 19.12.2014, the objects of recording confidential ACR have been dealt with in Para 18 of the order, which is being reproduced as hereunder- *18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar (AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa (AIR 1987 (SC) 1201); Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri (AIR 1991 (SC) 1216); S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa (1994 (5) SLR 199); Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka (1996 (5) SLR 643); State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher AIR 1996 (SC) 1328); State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh (AIR 1997 (SC) 608); Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana (AIR 1997 (SC) 2105); Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194), State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra (1997 (4) SCC 7); State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah (1999(1) SCC
529); P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors. (1999(7) SCC 329), B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar (2001 SCC (L&S) 403) and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors (OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007) on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
"(i) Article 51(A)(j) enjoins upon every citizen to constantly endeavour to individually and collectively. prove excellence Given an opportunity JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 21 an individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented.
(ii) The object of writing confidential reports is two-fold i.e., to given an opportunity to the officer concerned to remove the deficiencies, to improve his performance and to realize his potential and secondly to improve the quality & efficiency of the administration.
(iii) The object of communicating adverse ACR to the officer concerned is to enable him to make amends, to reform, to discipline himself and show improvement towards efficiency, excellence in public administration.
(iv) One of the uses of ACR is to grade him in various categories like outstanding, very good and satisfactory and average etc.
(v) Purpose of adverse entries is to be forewarn an employee to mend his ways and improve his performance.
(vi) The ACRs must be recorded at two levels.
(vii) The ACRs must be recorded objectively and after a careful consideration of all the materials. It should not be a reflection of personal whims or fancies or prejudices, likes of dislikes of a superior.
(viii) The Apex Court in Nambudiri's case after referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and G.S. Fijji has held that principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders if such orders inflict civil consequences. Civil consequences means anything which affect a citizen in his civil life. Unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching consequences than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry.
(ix) The Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary and Yamuna Shankar Misras case emphasized the need for sharing information before forming an adverse opinion. The Apex court in Amar Kant Choudhary had asked the Executive to re-examine the existing practice of writing of ACRs to find a solution to the misuse of these powers by officers, who may not be well disposed.
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 22
(x) Representations against adverse/below benchmark entries must be disposed of by the prescribed competent authority and not by other.
(xi) The disposal of the representation must be made in a quasi judicial manner by order on due application of mind".
11. From the above, it does appear that the purpose of recording APARs is to assess the person's ability and to help him torise to his level of ability. This issue is accordingly answered." 5.6. It is noticeable in the present case that a bare perusal of the observations made by the Reviewing Officer clearly reflects a lack of application of mind. The Reviewing Officer merely initialed, offering no explanation for accepting the Reporting Officer's assessment. Only initials are mentioned, with no observations or reasoning. The remarks are a stereotyped copy and, on the face of it, are liable to be quashed as they violate not only the OM quoted above but also the settled law of recording APARs. 5.7. It is also apparent from the records that, prior to these impugned entries, the applicant had the following appraisals for the relevant periods:
Appraisal Period Grading
01.04.2017- 31.03.2018 Out standing
01.04.2018- 24.07.2018 Very Good
09.08.2018- 31.12.2018 Very Good
5.8. The gradings in the ACRs of the officer are relevant. The officer's later performance and gradings would be more relevant than those from earlier years. Where the ACRs continuously record the integrity of the officer as being "beyond doubt", or grade him "outstanding" or "very good", it is an JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 23 important factor in favour of the officer. The applicant's ACR, which his superior authorities wrote and reviewed after a significant delay, clearly cannot disadvantage him. He had no control over the writing and review of his ACR. Therefore, we see no rational basis to disadvantage the applicant merely because his superior officers were lax in discharging their responsibilities.
5.9. In Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 566, it was held as under:-
"8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same, Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/8157/2006 : (2006) 9 SCC 69 and K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank of India and Ors. MANU/SC/8050/2008 : (2008) 9 SCC 120 and the other decisions of this Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a good law."
JUGALJUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:09:06 RE +05'30' OA No.2432-2022 24
6. CONCLUSION:
6.1 In view of the above analysis, the impugned order of the Reviewing Officer dated 31.08.2022 is quashed and set aside. The APARs of the applicant for the period starting 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019 shall not be taken into consideration for future service conditions and career prospects. The original application is allowed under the aforesaid terms.
6.2 Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jk/
JUGALJUGAL
KISHORE
KISHO 2026.03.25
14:09:06
RE +05'30'