Madras High Court
Ravindra Prasad vs The Director General on 22 September, 2022
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Order dated 22.09.2022 in
W.P.No.2897 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.2897 of 2018
--
Ravindra Prasad,
(IRLA No.4184),
Commandant, Recruit Training Centre,
Group Centre,
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Avadi, Chennai-600 065. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
Block No.1, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Special Director General,
North East Zone (NEZ),
Central Reserve Police Force,
9th Mile, Amerigog,
Guwahati, Assam-781 023.
3. The Inspector General of Police (OPS),
Central Reserve Police Force,
Jorhat, Assam-785 004.
4. The Deputy Inspector General (OPS),
Central Reserve Police Force,
Dibrugarh, Assam.
Page No.1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated 22.09.2022 in
W.P.No.2897 of 2018
5. The Deputy Inspector General (CR & Vig),
Office of Directorate General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
Block No.1, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
6. The Deputy Inspector General/Principal,
Recruit Training Centre (RTC), Group Centre,
Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai-600 065.
7. The Commandant,
36 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force,
Khonsa, Arunachal Pradesh. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating
to the impugned order of the second respondent in No.R.XIII.1/-2015-NEZ dated
23rd January 2017 and the consequential order of the fifth respondent in
No.R.XIII-53/2017-DA-13(APAR), dated 12th December, 2017 and quash the
same and direct the respondents 1 to 5 to upgrade the benchmark of "Good" in
the petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period from
01.04.2014 to 24.10.2014 or alternatively direct the respondents to ignore his
Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period from 01.04.2014 to
24.10.2014 while considering him for promotion to the next higher post.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Manoj Kumar
For respondents: Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, CGSC for RR-1 to 6
R-7 served with notice, - No appearance
Page No.2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated 22.09.2022 in
W.P.No.2897 of 2018
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2017 and the consequential order dated 12.12.2017, under which, it has been held that there is no cogent reason to interfere with the 'Good' recorded in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2014 to 25.10.2014.
2. The petitioner was working as Commandant in the Recruit Training Centre (RTC) in the administrative control of the sixth respondent, and the petitioner entered into service on 29.02.1996 in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Directly Appointed Gazetted Officer. He was working as Second-in- Command from 20.05.2008. When he was working in '36 Battalion', he was graded as 'Good' in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) by the seventh respondent for the period from 01.04.2014 to 24.10.2014. According to the petitioner, during the aforesaid APAR period from 01.04.2014 to 24.10.2014, he had not served under the Reporting Officer for a mandatory period of 90 days, though he has not worked under the Reporting Officer for the period of 90 days, he has been erroneously graded for his performance with lower Bench- Page No.3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 mark 'Good'.
3. According to the petitioner, the Reporting Officer was not having the requisite experience of 90 days to initiate the report. The fourth respondent herein, in the capacity as the Reviewing Officer, ought to have initiated the report, since the petitioner served only under him during the said period. It is also stated by the petitioner that, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the said exercise was not undertaken. Further, the fourth respondent, in the capacity as Reviewing Officer, failed to form independent judgment on his own. Moreover, the Reviewing Officer has mechanically agreed with the assessment and pen-picture was reflected by the Reporting Officer and awarded exactly same marks as that of the Reporting Officer, against each and every work output/attribute/functional competency parameter.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the Reporting Officer has used merely 18 words as against 70 words to describe his over-all qualities including areas of strength and lesser strength or weaknesses, thereby amounting to the fact that the Reporting Officer did not assess him in accordance with the guidelines and instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in this regard.
Page No.4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018
5. It is also stated by the petitioner that the third respondent being the accepting authority, without independently examining the APAR, merely concurred with the lower grading awarded by both Officers, namely the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer.
6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the third respondent, in violation of the guidelines, indicated the final grading by tick mark. Moreover, the copy of the APAR for the aforesaid period was communicated to him on 17.09.2015. According to the petitioner, he immediately submitted a representation to the Inspector General, North East Sector, against the lower bench-mark grading. The said representation of the petitioner was referred to the third respondent, who in turn directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the second respondent, following which, he submitted a representation on 08.04.2016 to the second respondent, requesting him to upgrade the 'Good' grading to higher bench-mark.
7. Thereafter, the second respondent rejected the said representation of the petitioner on 23.01.2017, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent, and in turn, the fifth respondent, by the impugned order Page No.5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 also rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that there is no provision for filing a second appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the prayer stated supra.
8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the allegations of the petitioner, and in paragraph 4 therein, details of leave/Government duty availed/done by the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2014 to 25.10.2014 have been given in the form of a Table, which is extracted hereunder:
Sl. Leave/election duty period No. of days
No.
Election duty as Commandant (ad-hoc - 323 57 days
Battalion w.e.f. 23/03.2014 to 18.05.2014 1 (Note: Period of the said APAR started w.e.f.
01.04.2014. The petitioner was remained in election duty w.e.f. 01.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 i.e. 48 days) 2 Earned Leave w.e.f. 19.05.2014 to 70 days 27,.07.2014 Commandant was on earned leave w.e.f.
08/07/2014 to 10.08.2014 3 (Note: The petitioner was on leave up to 34 days 27.07.2014. Hence, the petitioner was remained independent Command in unit w.e.f. 28.07.2014 to 10.08.2014 = 14 days) Petitioner was present at Unit HQr w.e.f.
4 11.08.2014 to 09.10.2014 60 days Election duty as Commandant Adhoc Jorhat 5 Operation Bn including the Company of 36 Page No.6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 Sl. Leave/election duty period No. of days No. Bn w.e.f. 10.10.2014 to 22.10.2014 13 days Commandant was on 05 days Casual Leave w.e.f. 20/10/2014 to 28.10.2014 6 Note: Casual leave was counted as duty as 09 days per instruction issued by DIGP (Personnel), Directorate General 7 Present in Unit HQr w.e.f. 23.10.2014 to 03 days 25.10.2014 It is further stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit as follows:
"From the above it is evident that, the petitioner remained/served under administrative control of the Commandant 36 Bn, CRPF for more than the mandatory period of 90 days, i.e. 48+60+13+9+3=133 days. Further, remarks and grading offered in the said APAR of the petitioner is as per his actual performance but not made arbitrarily as alleged. The petitioner's plea/averment that the Reporting Officer did not supervise his work for the mandatory period of 90 days is incorrect and not sustainable. Hence, the averments made by the petitioner are denied."
9. From the above table/averments made in paragraph 4 of the counter, it is clear that the petitioner remained/served under the administrative control of the Commandant 36 Bn, CRPF, for more than the mandatory period of 90 days, Page No.7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 i.e. 48+60+13+9+3=133 days.
10. Further, from paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the remarks and grading offered in the said APAR of the petitioner is as per his actual performance, but has not been done arbitrarily as alleged by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the Reporting Officer did not supervise the work for the mandatory period of 90 days, is incorrect.
11. It is the further contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not possess any outstanding qualities, and therefore, there was no necessity for the respondents to submit as per the existing pen picture of the petitioner in about 70 words. It is further stated by the respondents that the third respondent has independently examined the remarks and grading awarded in the APAR by the Reporting Officer. The Accepting Authority had not only ticked against "Good" grading, but also initialled the same.
12. The respondents have also stated in the counter affidavit that the appreciation letter dated 20.05.2014 issued to the petitioner for one good work done during the specific Election duty (GPE-2014), cannot change the Page No.8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 performance of the petitioner recorded during the rest of the period by means of quarterly memorandum of service. Further, whenever the Election goes smoothly, such certificates are generally issued to all the Officers connected with the Election duties by the competent authority.
13. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the grading cannot be decided based on a single incident or single achievement and instead, such grading will be decided based on the performance of an officer during the period in consideration as a whole. The petitioner had been graded in the APAR as 'Good' and no adverse comments have been made against the petitioner. From the counter affidavit, it could be inferred that having made an independent assessment based on the work performance of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot challenge the same.
14. It is further stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by way of number of advisory memos to rectify his short-comings, lapses, etc., during the relevant period. Therefore, according to the respondents, the claim of the petitioner that grading him as "Good" is not correct and it is neither sustainable nor tenable. Page No.9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018
15. It is further averred by the respondents in the counter affidavit that during Election duties, the administrative control rests with the concerned administrative authorities. Further, an employee is not treated as 'on duty' during the period of Earned Leave, whereas in the case of Casual Leave or approved training course, the period is to be treated as "on duty" and there is no provision for separate part APAR for various kinds of other duties of short duration. It is the stand of the respondents in the counter that the petitioner is also very much aware of these facts and the procedures.
16. Hence, for the above reasons, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
17. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
18. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer, grading him as "Good" for the period of his duty, i.e. between 01.04.2014 and 25.10.2014. Admittedly, no adverse remarks have been made against the petitioner, either by the Reporting Officer or by the Page No.10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 Reviewing Officer. Though the petitioner contends that the grading "Good" is not a good grading, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 23.01.2017, rejected the representation dated 08.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner.
19. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as an appellate authority, cannot re-assess the evidence, based on which, the grading has been given to the petitioner for the relevant period as mentioned in the impugned order.
20. The respondents have also contended that since there is no extraordinary performance on the part of the petitioner while on duty, there was no necessity for them to give a higher grading than "Good".
21. Though for the entire period of 133 days the petitioner has been graded "Good" by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer, it is stated by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was only under the control of the seventh respondent.
Page No.11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018
22. Even though the petitioner was under his own command while performing Election duty for the period of 48 days, he continued to be under the administrative control of the seventh respondent. Though this fact is disputed by the petitioner, there is no basis for disputing the said fact and therefore, it has to be rejected by this Court.
23. Moreover, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot review the assessment made under the impugned orders, that too when no legal grounds have been raised by the petitioner to review the said assessment.
24. Further, as seen from the impugned orders, no adverse comments/remarks have been made against the petitioner, which affects his career, and the assessment has been made only based on his performance while "on duty".
25. The decision of the Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in 2008 (8) SCC 725 (Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others) is distinguishable on facts and hence, the same is not applicable to Page No.12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 the case of the petitioner.
26. For the reasons stated supra, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
22.09.2022 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order: Yes/no cs To
1. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Special Director General, North East Zone (NEZ), Central Reserve Police Force, 9th Mile, Amerigog, Guwahati, Assam-781 023.
3. The Inspector General of Police (OPS), Central Reserve Police Force, Jorhat, Assam-785 004.
Page No.13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018
4. The Deputy Inspector General (OPS), Central Reserve Police Force, Dibrugarh, Assam.
5. The Deputy Inspector General (CR & Vig), Office of Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
6. The Deputy Inspector General/Principal, Recruit Training Centre (RTC), Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai-600 065.
7. The Commandant, 36 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Khonsa, Arunachal Pradesh.
Page No.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.2897 of 2018 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J cs W.P.No.2897 of 2018 22.09.2022 Page No.15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis