Kerala High Court
P. Venu vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 11 September, 2025
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250
257 & 258 of 2017 -:1:-
2025:KER:67490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO.134 OF 2017
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2016 IN OA NO.180/00371/2024
OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
P. VENU, ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER (RETIRED),
RESIDING AT NANDAVANAM, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 143.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UGYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 THE SALT COMMISSIONER,
LAVAN BHAVAN, 2A - LAVAN MARG,
JHALANA DUNGRI, JAIPUR - 302 004.
3 THE DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER,
AJANTHA COMMERCIAL CENTRE, B-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHAMADABAD - 380 014.
BY ADV. SHRI T. V. VINU, CGC
BY ADV. SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN(AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2025,
ALONG WITH OP(CAT).152/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250
257 & 258 of 2017 -:2:-
2025:KER:67490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO.152 OF 2017
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2016 IN OA NO.180/00372/2014
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
P. VENU, ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT NANDAVANAM, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 143.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2 THE SALT COMMISSIONER,
LAVAN BHAVAN, 2A, LAVAN MARG,
JHALANA DUNGRI, JAIPUR - 302 004.
3 THE DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER,
AJANTA COMMERCIAL CENTRE, B-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMADABAD - 380 014.
BY ADV. SHRI T. V. VINU, CGC
BY ADV. SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN(AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2025,
ALONG WITH OP(CAT).134/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250
257 & 258 of 2017 -:3:-
2025:KER:67490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO.248 OF 2017
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2016 IN OA NO.180/00549/2014
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
P. VENU, ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER (RETIRED),
RESIDING AT NANDAVANAM, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 143.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2 THE SALT COMMISSIONER,
LAVAN BHAVAN, 2A-LAVAN MARG,
JHALANA DUNGRI, JAIPUR - 302 004.
3 THE DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NUNGUMBACKAM, CHENNAI - 600006.
BY ADV. SHRI T. V. VINU, CGC
BY ADV. SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN(AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2025,
ALONG WITH OP(CAT).134/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250
257 & 258 of 2017 -:4:-
2025:KER:67490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO.250 OF 2017
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2016 IN OA NO.180/00436/2014
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
P. VENU, ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER (RETIRED),
RESIDING AT NANDAVANAM, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686143.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110 011.
2 THE SALT COMMISSIONER,
LAVAN BHAVAN, 2A-LAVAN MARG,
JHALANA DUNGRI, JAIPUR - 302 004.
3 THE DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NUNGAMBACKAM, CHENNAI-600 006.
BY ADV. SHRI T. V. VINU, CGC
BY ADV. SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN(AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2025,
ALONG WITH OP(CAT).134/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250
257 & 258 of 2017 -:5:-
2025:KER:67490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO.257 OF 2017
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2016 IN OA NO.180/00435/2014
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
P. VENU, ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER (RETIRED),
RESIDING AT NANDAVANAM, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 143.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2 THE SALT COMMISSIONER,
LAVAN BHAVAN, 2A-LAVAN MARG,
JHALANA DUNGRI, JAIPUR - 302 004.
3 THE DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NUNGAMBACKAM, CHENNAI - 600 006.
BY ADV. SHRI T. V. VINU, CGC
BY ADV. SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN(AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2025,
ALONG WITH OP (CAT).134/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250
257 & 258 of 2017 -:6:-
2025:KER:67490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO.258 OF 2017
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2016 IN OA NO.180/00435/2014
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
P. VENU, ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER(RETIRED),
RESIDING AT NANDAVANAM, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 143.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2 THE SALT COMMISSIONER
LAVAN BHAVAN, 2A-LAVAN MARGE,
JHALANA DUNGRI, JAIPUR - 302 004.
3 THE DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NUNGAMBACKAM, CHENNAI - 600 006.
BY ADV. SHRI T. V. VINU, CGC
BY ADV. SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN(AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2025,
ALONG WITH OP(CAT).134/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250
257 & 258 of 2017 -:7:-
2025:KER:67490
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
The challenge in these Original Petitions is to the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in various original applications filed by the Petitioner seeking to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, as well as in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports for the years 2009-2010, and 2011-2012, and the decision of the Competent Authority in upholding the said adverse remarks while deciding the representations thereto. By the impugned orders, the Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the original applications against which review applications were filed by the Petitioner, which were also dismissed. Hence, these petitions.
2. The Petitioner joined the Indian Salt Service as the Superintendent of Salt on 5 November 1984. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Salt Commissioner on 30 November 1999 with retrospective effect from 5 January 1994. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Divisional Offices at Jamnagar (Gujarat) and Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh). The Salt Commissioner communicated the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2003 - 2004, 2004 - 2005, 2007 - 2008, 2008 - 2009, and in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) for the years 2009 - 2010 and 2011 - 2012 OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:8:- 2025:KER:67490 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted representations to the Competent Authority against the adverse remarks requesting to expunge the same. The representations were rejected. The Petitioner filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, which were subsequently transferred to the Hyderabad Bench because of his transfer from Jamnagar to Kakinada. The Tribunal disposed of the applications by directing the Respondent - Union of India to pass a reasoned order on each and every adverse remarks against the Petitioner. The Respondent rejected the representations by a detailed order. On 30 June 2013, the Petitioner superannuated from service as Assistant Salt Commissioner.
3. O.P.(CAT) Nos. 134 of 2017 and 152 of 2017 are filed against the common order dated 1 July 2016 in O.A. Nos. 371/2014 and 372/2014. By the said order, the Tribunal having been found that there is no merit in the original applications, dismissed the same holding that the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the Petitioner in both the cases have been made on objective considerations and are justified by records.
4. O.P.(CAT) No. 248 of 2017 is filed against the order dated 19 July 2016 in O.A. No. 549/2014. By the order, the Tribunal dismissed the original application holding that there is no reason to interfere with the adverse remarks in the impugned two parts of Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the year 2011-2012. OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:9:- 2025:KER:67490
5. O.P.(CAT) No. 250 of 2017 is filed against the order dated 20 July 2016 in O.A. No. 436/2014. By the said order, the Tribunal directed the Respondent - Union of India, to consider deleting the observation that the Petitioner "is prone to commit financial irregularities". By directing so, the original application was partly allowed making it clear that it has not made any interference with the other remarks and also with the numerical gradings awarded by the reporting and reviewing authorities.
6. O.P.(CAT) No. 257 of 2017 is filed against the order dated 19 July 2016 in O.A. No. 435/2014. By the said order, the Tribunal having been found that the Petitioner failed to rebut the adverse remarks in his ACR for 2007 - 2008 and that his own pleadings and documents supported the conclusion that no interference was warranted, dismissed the original application.
7. O.P.(CAT) No. 258 of 2017 is filed against the order dated 20 July 2016 in O.A. No. 370/2014. By the said order, the Tribunal having been found that the Competent Authority in the order dated 10 April 2013 had taken into consideration both the official versions and Annexure-A2 representation submitted by the Petitioner and also the overall nature and conduct of the Petitioner in a subjective manner with objective consideration, dismissed the original application.
8. When the petitions came up on 20 August 2019, the Court requested the learned counsel Ms. Shamena Salahudheen to assist as Amicus Curiae.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:10:- 2025:KER:67490
9. We have heard the Petitioner Mr. P. Venu, who appeared in person, Mr. T. V. Vinu, the learned Central Government Counsel, and Ms. Shamena Salahudheen, the learned Amicus Curiae.
10. The Petitioner submitted that the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal holding that no intervention was warranted in the adverse remarks and the resultant gradings recorded in the APARs for the respective reporting years, is erroneous on the face of the record. The Tribunal had not decided the original applications on merits, but had non-suited the Petitioner observing that he had been, in performance of his official duties, judgmental than exercising his best judgment and had been revolting against the system. The case of the Petitioner ought to have been decided on the correct interpretation of the provisions of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Rules of 1964). Referring to Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules of 1964, it was submitted that if a Group A Officer in a lower rank of the administration refuses to comply with the orders of superiors and questions the constitutional and legal validity of such orders, the administration cannot function effectively. It was submitted that the Rule should be read as a whole, and that an interpretation consistent with all its objects should be adopted. It was submitted that in the earlier judgment of this Court and the order of the Tribunal relating to disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner, it was observed that the actions of the Petitioner were taken with the objective of safeguarding the interests of the State. It was submitted that throughout the respective period, the Petitioner had duly discharged the OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:11:- 2025:KER:67490 functions entrusted to him to the best of his ability, and the Tribunal did not consider the case as per the provisions of the Rules of 1964. Hence, the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and for expunging the adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, along with the below - par gradings.
11. The learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the Petitioner has filed the original petitions seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, but the issue involved in these petitions has become academic and the reliefs sought for are inconsequential because the original applications were filed by the Petitioner after his retirement from service as the Assistant Salt Commissioner on 30 June 2013 in respect of APAR gradings for the years 2003 - 2004, 2004 - 2005, 2007 - 2008, 2009 - 2010, and 2011 - 2012. The Petitioner has not sought any other specific or consequential relief either in the original applications or in the original petitions. While exercising the power of judicial review over the decision of the Competent Authority, the Tribunal has granted the Petitioner adequate opportunity, has acted well within its jurisdiction, and did not commit any procedural error. Therefore, no interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over the decision of the Tribunal is warranted.
12. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, the Central Government, after OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:12:- 2025:KER:67490 consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, framed the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (Rules of 1970). Rule 8 of the Rules of 1970 deals with Communication of Adverse remarks. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) by O.M. No.21011/1/2005-Estt. (A) (Pt-II), dated 14 May 2009 has issued certain executive directions regarding the maintenance and preparation of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs). One more provision of relevance in these petitions is Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules of 1964 which provides that no Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior.
13. O.A. No. 180/00371/2014 was filed for expunging the adverse remarks mentioned in the ACR for the year 2003-2004, O.A. No. 180/00372/2014 was filed for expunging the adverse remarks mentioned in the ACR for the year 2004-2005, O.A. No. 180/00549/2014 was filed for expunging the adverse remarks mentioned in the APAR for the year 2011-2012, O.A. No. 180/00436/2014 was filed for expunging the adverse remarks mentioned in the APAR for the year 2009-2010, O.A. No. 180/00435/2014 was filed for expunging the adverse remarks mentioned in the ACR for the year 2007-2008, and O.A. No. 180/00370/2014 was filed for expunging the adverse remarks mentioned in the ACR for the year 2008-2009.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:13:- 2025:KER:67490
14. The adverse remarks recorded against the Petitioner in the ACR for the year 2003 - 2004 as per the communication dated 2 August 2004 are as follows:
"A. He was assigned certain targets to be achieved which he failed to mention. The reasons given by him are not relevant.
B. Shri Venu does not want to work to achieve targets. He wastes his time and energy in criticising policy / functions of the department, which does not suit to his whim and fancies.
C. He is a knowledgeable person but applies his knowledge with negative attitude. D. He is not a dedicated worker. He is neither willing nor have initiative to systematise his work. E. He does not weigh pros and cons of alternatives available to him before taking a decision. At times, his decision creates problem for the smooth functioning of the administration. Some times, decisions taken by him are beyond his competency and contrary to the orders issued by his superior authorities.
F. He is quite capable in these aspects, but it was not displayed by him during the period under report. G. He is in habit of questioning authority of his superior officers, violate rules and regulations. He is, therefore, unable to instill confidence in his subordinate. Subordinates are therefore, afraid to defy him and work as dedicated.
H. His English is very good. However, he does not use simple language and short sentences as expected from a public servant.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:14:- 2025:KER:67490 I. Relationship with the superior / subordinates are good as long as they work in accordance with his whims and fancies. Shri Venu does not take advice in proper spirit. He find fault, with his superiors and level false allegations. As such he can't work as a member of team. J. Shri Venu is an intelligent officer, however he has developed a habit of defying orders of the superior officers and take contradictory stand on identical issues. K. Grading - Average."
*** The adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2004-2005 (in OA No. 372 of 2014) are as follows:
A. I don't agree with him. The constraints mentioned by him are his imagination. The special achievement mentioned in 3(b) is the only labour welfare work carried out by him under his direct supervision, that too, without obtaining sanction of the Competent Authority and following accounting procedure. He has not taken any initiative in execution of several labour welfare works sanctioned by us in his division.
B. He does not work as per the approved procedures and rules. Deliberately violate rules and refuse to act as per the statutory rules when pointed out to him. C. A knowledgeable person but sparingly use it. D. He is neither dedicated nor willing to learn work. He does not correct himself when mistakes are pointed out to him both orally or in writing.
E. Takes decisions without considering its implication. He has thus committed several financial regularities. OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:15:- 2025:KER:67490 F. There was no occasion to judge his ability in handling unforeseen situation. He has done several wrong things in violation of statutory rules and has thus committed several financial irregularities. G. No, Inspector of Salt, Jamnagar refused to sign indents for supply of wagons and Sri. P. Venu has signed it in violation of term and condition of registration. H. Very good. Has got knack of evading main issue while submitting his explanation for violating rules / regulation / procedure.
I. Does not have cordial relation with any one. Subordinates fear him due to his guts of violating statutory rules and no visible disciplinary action against him. He refuses to comply with orders of his superior officers including head of the Department or Ministry of Industry. Not capable to work as a member of team. J. Please given an overall assessment of the Officer with reference to his / her strength and shortcomings and also by drawing attention to the qualities if any not covered by the entries above.
K. An intelligent officer, has got power to express himself but with negative approach. L. Grading - Below average."
*** The adverse remarks recorded in the APARs for the remaining years follow a similar pattern.
15. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the Rules of 1964 do not require him to jettison the interest of the State in order to follow the OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:16:- 2025:KER:67490 directions of his superior, rather he is obliged to act within his best judgment, and therefore, merely because he questioned the directions of his superior, which according to him were against the interest of the State, such conduct cannot be treated as adverse. The Petitioner specifically referred to Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules of 1964 which provides that every Government servant has to act within his best judgment. This contention was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that the expression "best judgment" requires a government servant to act judiciously, and not to sit in judgment or become judgmental over the directions issued by his official superiors. The interpretation by the Tribunal in the context of the Petitioner's case cannot be said to be perverse. While entertaining a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, it is not possible for this Court to exercise power akin to appeal.
16. The original applications were filed by the Petitioner after his retirement from service as Assistant Salt Commissioner on 30 June 2013 The Petitioner has made no allegations with respect to the procedure followed. Judicial interference with adverse entries recorded in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports is limited, and courts are slow to interfere since such entries are made by the reporting officers based on their subjective satisfaction. The learned Amicus Curiae has placed before us the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka and Another1.
1 AIR 2024 SC 1397 OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:17:- 2025:KER:67490
17. The Petitioner made representations against the adverse entries. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 provides for consideration of representation against adverse remarks. The order passed on the representation is final. The Government of India, Department of Personnel, by O.M. No. 51/5/72-Ests.(A) dated 20 May 1972, has prescribed certain procedures in paragraph 9.5 regarding the manner of disposal of representations from the employees against the adverse remarks communicated to them. In each of these cases, representations made by the Petitioner have been considered in detail. First, the representation dated 15 July 2006 in O.P. (CAT) No.134 of 2017 was rejected on 1 November 2006 and the proceedings were remanded for re-consideration of the representation. Thereafter, a detailed order came to be passed on 14 December 2010 rejecting the representation submitted by the Petitioner.
18. We have gone through the reasoned orders rejecting the representations. The orders record the contentions of the Petitioner, refer to the comments of the Competent Authority, and provide detailed consideration for each of the entries. The Authority while considering the representations of the Petitioner has looked into the records. To demonstrate the level of scrutiny by the Authority in deciding the representation, reference is made to the order in O.P.(CAT) No.134 of 2017. It can be seen that the order disposing of the representation was a detailed order. The first entry in the ACR for the year 2003 - 2004 pertains to the non-achievement of certain targets, but the reasons given were deemed irrelevant. The contention of the Petitioner was that the OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:18:- 2025:KER:67490 targets as assigned were only forecast regarding the quality of salt likely to be produced, and therefore, they cannot form material for any adverse entry. The comment of the Competent Authority was that the Salt Commissioner's Organisation has to plan and achieve objectives every year as the organisation is responsible to grant financial assistance for the execution of development and labour welfare works from the salt cess receipts collected under the Salt Cess Act, 1953. Therefore, the objectives were not forecasts. The Competent Authority noted that the Petitioner had not mentioned about the steps taken to achieve its targets and reason for not achieving the targets. It did not take any proactive stand to achieve the targets.
19. The second entry was that the Petitioner instead of achieving the targets criticized the policy. As regards this, the Authority found that the Petitioner was more focused on criticizing the implementation of Government programs rather than suggesting or initiating remedies and measures for improvement. However, the Competent Authority decided to remove the remark "which does not suit his whims and fancies" and retained the other remarks. As regards the remark that the Petitioner applies his knowledge negatively, the Competent Authority has expunged the said remark. The next remark was that the Petitioner was not a dedicated worker and was neither willing nor has the initiative to systematize his work. The Competent Authority, noting that the Petitioner did not give suggestions to improve the remarks, decided to retain the remarks. These instances will show that the approach adopted OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:19:- 2025:KER:67490 by the Authority in deciding the representations was not mechanical. For each and every remarks, the Competent Authority examined the records, considered the explanation of the Petitioner, expunged certain remarks, and retained the other.
20. That being the position, it brings us to the scope of judicial review. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after going through the records, concluded that the Competent Authority has considered the representations submitted by the Petitioner and that the Tribunal has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction over the remarks. We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal, neither the approach of the Tribunal is perverse. The grading and assessment of an officer require a comprehensive understanding of various facets such as personality traits, professional parameters, competency, and the ability to execute projects. It also requires an understanding of the goals and objectives of the institution, and the approach the officer has to adopt to achieve those goals. Therefore, unless there is clear perversity on the face of it or complete non-consideration of the representations, the Tribunal would generally not interfere with or quash and set aside the adverse remarks. This position of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Khemka.
21. Having considered the matter in totality, we find that the representations of the Petitioner were duty considered by the Competent Authority and were disposed of by reasoned orders. The Tribunal, after OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:20:- 2025:KER:67490 giving full opportunity to the Petitioner, looked into the grievance of the Petitioner, and considering the law regarding restricted judicial review in respect of the adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, disposed of the applications by the impugned orders. We find no reason to take a different view.
22. The Original Petitions are dismissed.
23. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae in this case.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE krj/-
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO C.J.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:21:- 2025:KER:67490 APPENDIX OF OP(CAT).134/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
180/00371/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.08.2004 & ORDER DATED 18.04.2013.
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.07.2006.
EXHIBIT P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN OA. NO.180/00371/2014.
ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 01.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2009 IN OA 328/2008 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH.
ANNEXURE R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2012 IN OA 80/2011 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH.
ANNEXURE R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DP & AR'S OM NO.51/5/72-ESTT. 'A' DATED 20TH MAY, 1972 OF THE THE DOPT.
EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA. NO.371/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:22:- 2025:KER:67490 EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 01.07.2016 IN OA. NO.180/00371/2014.
EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.180/00055/2016 IN OA. NO.180/00372/2014.
EXHIBIT P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.
55/2016 IN OA. NO.371/2016 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE RA-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/7/2016 IN O.A. NO.180/00371/2014.
ANNEXURE RA-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2014 IN O.A. NO.180/00434/2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- 'NIL' OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:23:- 2025:KER:67490 APPENDIX OF OP(CAT).152/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
180/00372/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.10.2005 & ORDER DATED 18.04.2013.
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.05.2006.
EXHIBIT P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN OA. NO.180/00372/2014.
ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 06.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2009 IN OA 327/2008 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH.
ANNEXURE R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2012 IN OA 81/2011 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH.
ANNEXURE R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DP & AR'S OM NO.51/5/72-ESTT. 'A' DATED 20TH MAY, 1972 OF THE THE DOPT.
EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA. NO.372/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:24:- 2025:KER:67490 EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 01.07.2016 IN OA. NO.180/00372/2014.
EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.
180/00055/2016 IN OA. NO.180/00372/2014.
EXHIBIT P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.
56/2016 IN OA. NO.372/2016 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE RA-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/7/2016 IN O.A. NO.180/00372/2014.` ANNEXURE RA-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2014 IN O.A. NO.180/00434/2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- 'NIL' OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:25:- 2025:KER:67490 APPENDIX OF OP(CAT).248/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
180/00549/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/9/2012 & UNDATED ORDER OF MARCH 2014.
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/12/2012.
ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/12/2012.
ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11/03/2013.
EXHIBIT P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN OA. NO.180/00549/2014.
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DIPP OM DATED MARCH 2014 ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT OM DATED 14/05/2009.
ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT OM DATED 23RD JULY 2009 EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA. NO.549/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2016 IN OA. NO.180/00549/2014.
EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25TH AUGUST 2011.
EXHIBIT P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21ST JANUARY 2011.
EXHIBIT P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.59/2016 IN O.A. NO.371/2016.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:26:- 2025:KER:67490 ANNEXURE RA-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/7/2016 IN O.A. NO.180/00549/2014.
ANNEXURE RA-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2014 IN O.A. NO.180/00434/2014.
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15TH DECEMBER EXHIBIT P-8:
2016 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.180/00059/2016 IN OA. NO.180/00549/2015.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- 'NIL' OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:27:- 2025:KER:67490 APPENDIX OF OP(CAT).250/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
180/00436/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/10/2010 & ORDER DATED 26/06/2013.
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/11/2010.
EXHIBIT P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN OA. NO.436/2014. ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 26/06/2013. ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT OM DATED 14/05/2009. ANNEXURE R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT OM DATED 23/07/2009. EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA. NO.436/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/7/2016 IN OA.
NO.180/00436/2014.
EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.58/2016 IN O.A. NO.436/2016. ANNEXURE RA-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/7/2016 IN O.A. NO.180/00436/2014.
ANNEXURE RA-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2014 IN O.A. NO.180/00434/2014.
EXHIBIT P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15TH DECEMBER 2016 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.180/ 00058/2016 IN OA. NO.180/00436/2014.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:28:- 2025:KER:67490 APPENDIX OF OP(CAT).257/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
180/00435/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/11/2008 AND ORDER DATED 06/06/2013.
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/02/2011.
EXHIBIT P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN OA 180/00435/2014. ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 06/06/2013. ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT OM DATED 20/05/1972. EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER IN OA. NO.435/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2016 IN OA.
NO.180/00435/2014.
EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.
57/2016 IN OA NO.435/2016.
ANNEXURE RA-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2016 IN OA NO.180/00435/2014.
ANNEXURE RA-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2014 IN OA NO.180/00434/2014.
EXHIBIT P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016 IN RA.180/00057/2016 IN OA.180/00435/2014.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- 'NIL' OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:29:- 2025:KER:67490 APPENDIX OF OP(CAT).258/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
180/00370/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/07/2009, 24/08/2009 & ORDER DATED 10/04/2013. ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/10/2009.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN OA NO.180/00370/2014. ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/02/2010 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/05/2010 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/06/2010 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/07/2010 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/04/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DP & AR'S OM NO.51/5/72-ESTT. 'A' DATED 20TH MAY, 1972 OF THE DOPT.
ANNEXURE R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 14.05.2009 OF THE DOPT.
EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA NO.370/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
OP(CAT).134, 152, 248, 250 257 & 258 of 2017 -:30:- 2025:KER:67490 EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/7/2016 IN OA.
NO.180/00370/2014.
EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.55/2016 IN OA NO.371/2016.
ANNEXURE RA-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2016 IN OA. NO.180/00370/2014.
ANNEXURE RA-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2014 IN OA. NO.180/00434/2014.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15THOF DECEMBER
2016 IN RA NO.180/00054/2016 IN OA
NO.180/00370/2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- 'NIL'
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.