Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naredra Kumar Yadav vs M/O Finance, D/O Revenue on 10 December, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.3070 OF 2024
Orders reserved on : 08.12.2025
Orders pronounced on : 10.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
NAREDRA KUMAR YADAV
S/o Vijay Kumar Yadav,
Age- 39 Years
R/o:- ADG Bungalow Nacin Complex Sector 29
Faridabad 121008
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ravi Prakash)
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA,
Through Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT
TAXES AND CUSTOMS,
Through Chairman,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-11 0001.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL
Directorate General of Human Resource,
And Development,
2nd & 3rd Floor, Bhai Veer Singh Sahitya Sadan,
Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Rajeev Kumar)
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30'
Item No.42/C-1 2 OA No.3070/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Referral Board summarily dismissing the representation of the Applicant.
b. Issue an appropriate direction or order expunging the vague, unsubstantiated and adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) and downgraded grading for the period of 2021-22.
c. Issue any other appropriate direction or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. The applicant joined service as Assistant Commissioner on 31.08.2009. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner on 11.09.2015 and also to the post of Joint Commissioner on 25.05.2019.
2.1 The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( in short 'CBIC'), vide Board Circular No. 128/47/2019 dated 23.12.2019, directed inter alia that the generation and quotation of Document Identification Number (DIN) shall be mandatory for all communications issued to taxpayers and other concerned persons by any office of CBIC across the country.
2.2 The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) issued an appreciation letter dated 31.08.2021 to the applicant for rendering exceptional and meritorious services in the detection of GST evasion and investigation of several industry-specific sensitive cases.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30'
Item No.42/C-1 3 OA No.3070/2024
2.3 The Additional Director General, DGGI, vide Order No. 14/2022
dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure A-6), issued directions to complete investigations in a time-bound manner in view of the increasing number of delays in investigations. Para (iii) of the said Order reads as under:-
"iii) A reconciliation of search warrants issued shall be done by Additional Directors by 30th April, 2022 and the outcome of the search warrants should be recorded in the concerned file."
2.4 The applicant was promoted to the post of Additional Commissioner on 01.01.2022 and is presently posted at Delhi. 2.5 In pursuance of para 3 of above Order No. 14/2022, the applicant, in his capacity as Additional Commissioner, issued an office note dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure A-7 @Pg. 214) to all JOs/SIOs directing them to submit reconciliation with respect to the search warrants/authorisations issued to them.
2.6 The Annual Performance Appraisal Report (in short 'APAR') for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 was disclosed to the applicant on 28.07.2022 (Annexure A-2). A perusal of Section II of the said APAR, filled by the Reporting Officer, namely, Sh. Pradyuman Kumar Tripathi, reveals an inconsistent view taken regarding the applicant's performance. Despite acknowledging the accomplishment of the work plan, unforeseen tasks, and exceptional contribution of the applicant (Column 3 @Pg. 63), the Reporting Officer issued a vague, biased and unsubstantiated adverse remark (Column 9 @Pg. 66). The Reviewing Officer concurred with the grading and remarks of the Reporting Officer.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30'
Item No.42/C-1 4 OA No.3070/2024
2.7 Being aggrieved by the alleged vague, biased, and
unsubstantiated adverse remarks in his above APAR for 2021-22, the Applicant submitted a representation dated 10.08.2022 before the Referral Board seeking review of the remarks.
2.8 The Referral Board, vide its order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure A-1 @Pg. 44-56), disposed of the applicant's above representation and upheld the rating and remarks recorded by both the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer.
2.9 The aforesaid order dated 17.07.2023 was communicated to the applicant by the Competent Authority on 28.07.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the APAR should be used as a tool for career planning, development and training, and not merely as a judgment exercise. In this regard, the following General Guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) are relevant:
"Introduction ....Reporting Officers should realize that the objective is to develop an officer so that he/she realizes his/her true potential. It is not meant to be a fault-finding process but a development tool. The Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer should not shy away from reporting shortcomings in performance, attitudes or overall personality of the officer reported upon..."
2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30' Item No.42/C-1 5 OA No.3070/2024 Further, the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2009 issued by DoP&T states that "The object of writing the confidential report and making entries is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve the performance."
4.1 Learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, reported in (1996) 8 SCC 762, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of APAR is two-fold, i.e., firstly, to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and inculcate discipline; and secondly, to bring about improvement in quality, excellence and efficiency of public service. In support of above contention, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Tarsem Kumar v. Union of India, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1899.
4.2 Learned counsel argued that before making any adverse entry, the officer must be given prior and sufficient opportunity in writing to rectify any deficiency. However, no such opportunity was given to the applicant during the period 01.04.2021-31.03.2022. The failure to provide this mandatory opportunity renders the adverse remarks contrary to settled legal principles.
4.3 Learned counsel further argued that the Reporting Officer has recorded vague and unsubstantiated remarks without citing: any relevant material, any incident of misconduct, any specific failure of duty, or any objective deficiency. Such remarks are liable to be set aside 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30' Item No.42/C-1 6 OA No.3070/2024 in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:
(i) State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Mishra, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 7 and
(ii) Sukhdeo v. Commissioner, Amravati Division, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 103.
4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has consistently maintained a good APAR record prior to 2021-22; and received 'Outstanding' grading with a positive pen picture in subsequent years. This establishes that the isolated downgrading for 2021-22 is anomalous, arbitrary, and suspicious. To buttress his argument, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Manudev Dahiya v. Union of India, WP(C) 2673/2016 decided on 18.07.2023.
4.5 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there has been no reference to any relevant information or necessary particulars of misconduct or failure in performing duties while recording the adverse remarks in the APAR. Hence, the adverse remarks are contrary to the settled principles of law. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdeo vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division & Ors., reported in (1996) 5 SCC 103.
4.6 Learned counsel argued that no caution, warning, or advice regarding any alleged decline in applicant's performance was issued during the assessment period i.e., from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Dhundia vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1842.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30'
Item No.42/C-1 7 OA No.3070/2024
4.7 Learned counsel further argued that despite the fact that the
mandate for compliance of Order No.14/2022 dated 24.02.2022 was up to 30.04.2022, the APAR for the year 2021-22 (period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022) refers to alleged non-compliance of the said order which clearly establishes that the alleged failure was premature and could not have been considered in the impugned APAR. 4.8 Learned counsel also argued that the applicant has been graded as "Outstanding" in the APARs for subsequent years, with a positive pen picture recorded by both the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities. This further demonstrates that the adverse remarks for the year 2021-22 are isolated, arbitrary, and not reflective of applicant's overall performance. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. By referring to the counter reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Referral Board observed that the Reporting Officer had closely monitored the performance of the applicant and had made a detailed assessment. According to the Board, the alleged failure of the applicant in the discharge of his official duties was reflected in the remarks recorded in Section II(3) and Section I(9) of the APAR by the Reporting Officer. The Board further noted that the comments furnished by the Reporting Officer on applicant's representation dated 15.12.2022 were consistent with, and purportedly substantiated, the earlier assessment. The Referral Board also observed that the Reviewing Officer, both in his assessment and in his comments on the representation dated 26.12.2022, concurred with the view of the Reporting Officer. This concurrence, according to the Board, reinforced 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30' Item No.42/C-1 8 OA No.3070/2024 its conclusion that the impugned APAR assessment accurately reflected applicant's performance during the relevant period. Further, The Referral Board's decision was based on the material placed before it which included the resume/APAR, representation/submissions made by the officer and comments of the Reporting/Reviewing Officer. The Referral Board took note of all the facts of the case and considered the work performance and conduct/behaviour of the officer during the impugned period and accordingly disposed of the representation. 5.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the assessment of the previous years cannot be taken into account while making the assessment for a specific year. The Reporting and Reviewing Officers are required to make individual, independent and fair assessment, taking into account the performance of the officer during the relevant period. The Reporting as well as Reviewing Officer have made their individual assessment, which has also been duly substantiated by them. The Referral Board also took note of the contribution of the officer during the relevant period and observed that the applicant failed to give the details of any exceptional contribution made by him during the impugned period which could substantiate his claim of not having been assessed correctly. The Referral Board also observed that the Reporting/Reviewing Officer have made their assessments with due care and nothing had been overlooked. As such applicant's contention to go into the details of previous and succeeding APARs cannot be acceded to as the assessment is made for the performance of the officer during the reported period.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30'
Item No.42/C-1 9 OA No.3070/2024
5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the representation dated
10.08.2022 of the applicant was processed as per the procedure specified in para 2 of DoP&T OM dated 13.04.2010 which provides that:-
"As per the existing instructions, representations against the remarks or for upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR (previously known as ACR) should be examined by the competent authority in consultation, if necessary, with the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer, if any. While considering the representation, the competent authority decides the matter objectively in a quasi- judicial manner on the basis of material placed before it."
The above instructions were scrupulously followed while disposing of the representation submitted by the applicant. The Reporting as well as Reviewing Authority in the Pen Picture at Section III (9) and Section IV (3) respectively have described the officer in detail describing his overall qualities focusing on his areas of strengths and lesser strengths. The Reporting Officer at Section III (3) of the APAR and in his comments on the representation has highlighted certain areas of underperformance by the officer reported upon and in Para 2 of the comments has categorically stated:
"......However, during the reporting period, Sh. Narendra was found to have fallen short of his administrative and supervisory responsibilities. In a serious matter of issuing Search Warrants and their reconciliation, the officer disowned his statutory responsibility and passed on the responsibility to subordinate officers. The officer also showed lack of effective control over his subordinates. He failed in taking appropriate action in the matter of irregularities committed by his subordinate officers during the course of a search. This irresponsible approach of his administrative and supervisory duties resulted in booking of case against his subordinate officers by CBI. He also appears to have backdated the signature on the pack of a SW endorsing irregularities committed by himself and the subordinates. This issue, amongst other irregularities committed by the officer was forwarded to the competent authority for viewing it from vigilance angle."
The officer's lack of effective supervision over subordinates was duly noted by the Referral Board. Accordingly, the Referral Board after 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30' Item No.42/C-1 10 OA No.3070/2024 thorough discussions concluded that the Reporting as well as Reviewing Officer have taken into account the overall performance of the officer and has correctly and appropriately assessed based on his performance and attributes. The Referral Board considering all the facts of the case was of the opinion that the overall grading and remarks as awarded by the Reporting as well as Reviewing Officer is just and fair being sufficiently substantiated.
5.3 Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the instant OA deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record as well as judgments on which reliance has been placed by the applicant.
ANALYSIS
7. The applicant has specifically raised the plea in his representation for reviewing of the APAR for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, as the Reporting/Reviewing Authorities relied upon Order No. 14/2022 dated 24.02.2022, and recorded an adverse remark alleging that the applicant failed to reconcile the search warrants and showed an irresponsible attitude by shifting responsibility to his subordinates instead of discharging his statutory duties. The relevant portion of the said Order reads as under:
"iii) A reconciliation of search warrants issued shall be done by Additional Directors by 30th April, 2022 and the outcome of the search warrants should be recorded in the concerned file."
(emphasis supplied) 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30' Item No.42/C-1 11 OA No.3070/2024 7.1 Once the above order dated 24.02.2022 clearly stipulates that the reconciliation of search warrants was required to be completed by 30.04.2022, i.e., after the close of the APAR reporting period ending 31.03.2022, it is wholly inexplicable and unjustified as to how the authorities, while recording the APAR for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, concluded that the applicant had failed to comply with the said directive. The deadline for reconciliation had not even arisen during the said reporting period; therefore, any adverse remark alleging "failure" to comply with an obligation falling due after the reporting period is premature, arbitrary, and impermissible. 7.2 The adverse inference drawn in the applicant's aforesaid APAR for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 on the alleged non- reconciliation of search warrants is legally unsustainable, procedurally unfair and contrary to binding Office Memoranda and judicial principles. We observe that the direction requiring reconciliation of search warrants was issued only on 24.02.2022, with a deadline fixed as 30.04.2022. Since the APAR reporting period ended on 31.03.2022, the applicant could not have been expected to complete an exercise whose statutory deadline fell after the reporting period.
8. As per DoP&T OM dated 13.04.2010, the assessment of an officer must relate strictly to the performance during the relevant reporting period. Consideration of incidents beyond the reporting period is impermissible. The reporting authority, by attributing failure to comply with a direction whose deadline had not arisen during the APAR period, acted contrary to the above instructions, rendering the assessment 2026.01.05 RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30' Item No.42/C-1 12 OA No.3070/2024 arbitrary, premature and vitiated. Further, Para 2 of the DoP&T OM dated 13.04.2010 mandates that representations against APAR entries must be examined objectively in a quasi-judicial manner based on material pertaining exclusively to the reporting period. This requirement stands violated as the impugned entry relies on an extraneous future event. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 has held that any APAR grading based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The present adverse remark squarely falls within this prohibition. Further, in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 146, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that APAR entries based on non-existent or incomplete material are illegal. Here, the alleged non-reconciliation did not exist within the reporting period.
9. As the deadline for reconciliation was 30.04.2022, i.e., after the reporting period, the allegation of failure recorded in the APAR pertaining to the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 is based on "no evidence" and is, therefore, perverse and violative of the principles of natural justice.
10. In view of the above, the adverse remarks contained in the APAR for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 is arbitrary, based on irrelevant material, violative of DoP&T instructions and contrary to binding judicial precedents.
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30'
Item No.42/C-1 13 OA No.3070/2024
11. In the result, for the forgoing reasons, the present OA is allowed with the following directions:-
(a) The remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer in para 3, 4 and 9 of Section-III- Appraisal of APAR for the year 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 are quashed and set aside;
(b) The remarks recorded by the Reviewing Authority in Section-
IV- Review in para 3 of the said section will only remain the pen picture for the said period, i.e., 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022;
(c) The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits;
and
(d) The competent authority/respondents are directed to provide an updated copy of APAR for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, as per this Order to the applicant within 2 (two) weeks of this Order.
12. Pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/
2026.01.05
RAVI KANOJIA17:18:29+05'30'