Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rahul Sachan vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2026
1
O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00373/2024
Order Reserved on: 14.1.2026
Date of Order: 27.1.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Rahul Sachan,
S/o Ajaykumar Sachan, Aged about 35 years,
Working as Inspector of Central Tax,
South Commissionerate, C.R.Building,
Queen's Road, Bangalore-560 001. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bangalore Zone, PB No.5400, Queen's Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
4. The Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bangalore South Commissionerate,
C.R.Building, Queen's Road,
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.01.28
10:52:48+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Bangalore-560 001. ...Respondents
(By Shri Sayed S Kazi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act. 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned replies
(i) Letter No.GCCO/II/PROM/3/2024-
ESTT.O/o Pr.CC-CGST ZONE dated 5.2.2024 (ANNEXURE A1) passed by Third respondent and (ii) Letter F No.II/88/2021- ESTT-O/o COMMR-CGST-BENGALURU(S) dated 3.5.2024 (ANNEXURE A2) passed by Fourth respondent;
(c) Declare that the findings of the DPC in its meeting dated 2.1.2024 in so far as the applicant is concerned as arbitrary and unsustainable;
(d) Consequently direct the respondents to convene a review DPC and consider the case of the applicant for promotion in accordance with law and to promote him from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits including the seniority and pay and allowances, if need be by creating a supernumerary post.
(e) and grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this OA in the interest of justice."
2. The above mentioned reliefs are claimed on the following grounds and legal provisions:
"5.1. The denial of promotion to the applicant even when he has met with the overall grading is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. In view of this the impugned reply is also unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
5.2. The applicant has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity, honesty and efficiently and thereby he has earned excellent grading in all the years except one year. The applicant has culled out his grading from his APAR from the year of his appointment till the latest APAR which is as below.
Reporting year Grading awarded Grading awarded
by by Reviewing
Reporting authority
authority
2016-17 6.91 6.84 (Annexure
A3)
2017-18 8 9 (Annexure A4)
2018-19 (Part I) 6.37 7.19 (Annexure
(Part II) 7.90 A5(1)
7.89 (Annexure
A5(2)
2019-20 (Part I) 4 4 (Annexure
(Part II) 4 A6(1)
4 (Annexure
A6(2)
2020-21 8.57 8.77 (Annexure
A7)
2021-22 8.95 9.00 (Annexure
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.01.28
10:52:48+05'30'
4
O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE A8) 2022-23 10 10 (Annexure A9) From the perusal of the above tabulation it is crystal clear that every year the applicant's grading has not only been up to the mark but in fact going up steadily from 2016-17 to 2018-19 but there is a steep fall in the grading for the year 2019-20 and again has gone up from 2020-21 steadily till the latest available report.
The applicant has been working under the supervision of different officers and has always been graded highly except for the year 2019-20 as is evident from the tabulation above. As the bench mark of APAR required for promotion from the post of Inspector to Superintendent of Central Excise is 4 and above and as the applicant has secured 4 and above in all the relevant years there was no reason for the DPC not to have recommended his case for promotion. However, the decision of the DPC that because of the adverse remarks of both the reporting and reviewing officers for the year 2019-20 the applicant's case has not been recommended for promotion is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable.
5.3. The applicant humbly submits that for the year 2019-20 there were two reports one for the period from 1.4.2019 to 22.11.2019 [Annexure A6(1)] and another for the period from 23.11.2019 to 31.3.2020 [Annexure A6(2)]. This was because there was a change in the officer functioning as the reviewing authority. While the reviewing authority in Annexure A6(1) was Smt. Pallavi Anand it was Shri N.B. Harish Ballal in Annexure A6(2). However, the reporting authority was the same official viz., Shri Venkatesh S, Superintendent for the entire year 2019-2020 under report. The reporting officer has not given the remarks for the sincere duty rendered by the applicant but has given 4/10 marks for extraneous reasons in both the reports and the respective reviewing officers have concurred SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE with the remarks given by the reporting officer without assigning why they agree with the grading of the reporting officer. On receipt of both the reports the applicant submitted representations which have not yielded any improvement in his grading. But in view of the fact that as per DOPT OM dated 23.7.2009 laying down that grading between 4 and 6 and short of 6 will be rated as 'good' and given a score of 5 and in view of the fact that 'good' is the bench mark for promotion the applicant did not deem it further escalate the matter. A true copy of the DOPT OM dated 23.7.2009 with necessary annexures is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A13. Therefore, it can be seen that despite possessing the required bench mark for all the years under consideration the DPC has not considered the applicant 'fit' for promotion and thereby the applicant has been unjustly denied promotion. In the circumstances the impugned letters are liable to be set aside.
5.4. The applicant herewith produces and marks as ANNEXURE A14, a copy of extracts of the "Guidelines for DPC's" from SWAMY'S COMPILATION of SENIORITY AND PROMOTION 2014 edition. A perusal of the said guidelines makes out that the DPC should not be guided by overall grading that may be recorded in the CRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. In the present case except for one year the applicant has obtained very good grading in all years and merely because there is one particular alleged adverse remark that should not have been considered to arrive at the finding of 'not fit' by the DPC. Therefore, the impugned reply is unjust, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 5.5. A perusal of the five APARs for the years under consideration would clearly show that the performance of the applicant in the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 has been very good as graded by the different officers under whom the applicant was working. In the year 2019-20 the performance of the applicant has SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE drastically come down to attract a grading of only '4' but again in the subsequent years the performance of the applicant has been exceedingly good. Therefore, it is to be evaluated as how a person's performance is steadily progressing and suddenly falls very low only in one year and again from subsequent years the performance goes up. In fact in his latest APAR the applicant has secured 10 out of 10. Therefore, the DPC ought to have come to a conclusion that the alleged adverse remark should not be taken to grade him as 'unfit and in that view of the matter the applicant ought to have been treated as fit and should have been promoted. In the circumstances the impugned reply is unjust, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 5.6. It is crucial for the DPC to consider the overall picture in the five APARs of the government servant while considering for promotion and because of one or two remarks in one particular year should not come in the way of the DPC to declare a government servant as 'unfit for promotion. The DPC should appropriately substantiate its own assessment by giving justiciable and sustainable reasons. In this case the DPC has not done its duty by fully substantiating its own assessment and guided by one alleged adverse remark given in one year.
5.7. If the same treatment is given in the next few years by respective DPCs the applicant would not get his promotion even in the next four years because as per existing rules the DPC would consider five preceding years' APARS and there is a possibility that the applicant would not be treated as fit for the same reason. In between many of his juniors would become his seniors and in fact even now the applicant is working under his own junior because of denial of promotion.
5.8. The APAR for 2019-20 was written by the reporting officer at Kodagu (Madikeri) Division from Mysore Commissionerate after his transfer from SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Mysore. Prior to this transfer the applicant was residing in Mysore and his wife was in advanced stage of her pregnancy. Therefore, the applicant had to by force continue to reside in Mysore because of the fact that his wife was undergoing treatment and because of this there were a few occasions when the applicant was a little late to reach office owing the travel time from Mysore to Madikeri but he used to sit late and would finish the assigned tasks. All these were in the knowledge of the reporting officer who because of extraneous reasons has given the grading of '4' which is not the grading which the applicant deserved. However, in view of the fact that grading '4' would be treated as 'good' and the benchmark 'good' is sufficient for promotion from the post of Inspector to Superintendent the applicant did not want to antagonize the department by escalating the issue. He was never expecting that this would come in the way of his promotion. Therefore, the applicant humbly submits that the DPC should have considered overall remarks in all the five years' APARs and ought not to have graded the applicant 'not fit because of adverse remarks in one APAR. Consequently the impugned reply is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. 5.9. The applicant produces herewith copy of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 1262 and marks the same as ANNEXURE A15. In para 21 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "... the court still has to make an assessment as to whether the said remarks were merited by the appellant on account of his consistently good performance. Even his outburst against the respondent No.2 in his representation appears to be a fall out of such presumptions which was certainly not expected of an officer of the rank and calibre of the applicant. But in our view the same should not come in the way of an otherwise unblemished and outstanding career." The finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 5.10. The applicant obtained a copy of the Minutes of DPC held on 2.1.2024 under Right to Information Act and a copy thereof is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A16. The name of the applicant is at page No714 at Sl. No. 36 and against his name the finding of the DPC is mentioned as 'unfit. But no explanation is forthcoming anywhere in this Minutes as to why the applicant has been declared as unfit. Therefore, the DPC finding is arbitrary, unjust and bald. Therefore, the finding of the third respondent in the impugned reply dated 5.2.2024 that the DPC has found the applicant meeting the grading but the DPC assessed the applicant as unfit considering the adverse remarks by both the reporting and reviewing officers is purely imaginary and without any basis. Therefore, the impugned reply is liable to be set aside as the same is unsustainable.
5.11. Viewed from any angle the denial of promotion of the applicant is otherwise arbitrary, unjust and the impugned reply is liable to be quashed and set aside."
3. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the synopsis are that the applicant is a direct recruit Inspector, having joined the post on 26.4.2016 at Mysore Commissionerate. On 11.2.2019, the applicant was attached to Kodagu (Madikeri) Range under the Mysore Commissioner where he worked till his transfer to Bangalore on 5.6.2023. The applicant has earned very good grading in all his APARs right from 2016-17 to 2023-24 except in his APAR for 2019- 20 when the applicant worked under the control of one Shri Venkatesh, Superintendent at Kodagu Range. Though his work output SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE was on par with his work output before and after his transfer to and from Kodagu Range, the APAR of the applicant suffered a jolt as the said Superintendent accorded a grading of 4/10 and the respective reviewing officers concurred. The representations submitted against the arbitrary grading did not yield any improvement in his grading. However, since the grading of 4/10 is treated as 'GOOD' in terms of DOPT OM on the subject and since the grading of GOOD is sufficient for the purpose of promotion, the applicant thought it would meet the requirement whenever the DPC met for considering his case for promotion. However, the DPC, in its meeting held on 2.1.2024 while considering the case of the applicant, among others, has given a finding of 'unfit' and in that view of the finding, his name was not empanelled for promotion to the post of Superintendent. The representations of the applicant for consideration of his case afresh have been rejected by the third respondent by its order dated 5.2.2024 (Annexure A1) and the same having been served by the fourth respondent on 3.5.2024 (Annexure A2), the applicant has been constrained to approach this Tribunal in this OA.
4. On notice, respondents have filed their reply statement. The applicant has filed rejoinder thereafter. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. When the case came up for final hearing on 14.1.2026, learned counsel Shri.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar for the applicant and Shri.Sayed S Kazi for the respondents were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions of both parties.
7. Let us examine the grounds made out by the applicant for his case one by one. This case is on a very limited compass that, based on certain adverse entries in the APAR, the promotion of the applicant was initially not given and some of his juniors were promoted and subsequently, ignoring the said adverse entries, later the applicant was promoted. Based on the grounds agitated in paragraph 5 of the O.A, the applicant says that he has a case to get promotion retrospectively from the date of his junior getting promotion.
8. In paragraph 5.1, the applicant mentions that the denial of promotion to the applicant, even when he had met with the overall grading, is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. In view of that, the impugned reply by the respondents is also unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE To this, the respondents have replied that, under the facts of the case of the applicant, the reasons for not promoting him are consequent to the second supplementary DPC for the year 2023 held on 2.1.2024 has been communicated to him vide the respondent's letters dated 5.2.2024 and 8.3.2024 referred above.
At the time of argument, the respondents further say that as the applicant had certain adverse entries in his APARs, as per the provisions of promotions, 5 years' APARs and their entries have to be considered and, accordingly, as per rule, after due consideration of the overall grading and entries in his APARs, the authorities have taken a decision. Hence, it cannot be described as arbitrary and unjust and unsustainable.
9. In paragraph 5.2, the applicant has given the details of the grading awarded by the reporting officer and the reviewing authorities in various years for the applicant, and he emphasizes that he has been discharging his duties with the utmost sincerity, honesty and efficiency and, thereby, he has earned an excellent grading in all the years except one year. The same he has tabulated in the following manner:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Reporting year Grading Grading awarded by awarded by Reporting Reviewing authority authority 2016-17 6.91 6.84 (Annexure A3) 2017-18 8 9 (Annexure A4) 2018-19 (Part I) 6.37 7.19 (Annexure (Part II) 7.90 A5(1) 7.89 (Annexure A5(2) 2019-20 (Part I) 4 4 (Annexure (Part II) 4 A6(1) 4 (Annexure A6(2) 2020-21 8.57 8.77 (Annexure A7) 2021-22 8.95 9.00 (Annexure A8) 2022-23 10 10 (Annexure A9) The applicant says that perusal of the above table makes it clear that every year the applicant's grading has not only been up to the mark, but in fact gone up steadily from 2016-17 to 2018-19, but there is a steep fall in the grading for the year 2019-20 and again has gone up from 2020-21 steadily till the latest available report and that the applicant has been working under the supervision of different officers and has always been graded highly except for the year 2019-20 as is evident from the tabulation above. As the benchmark of APAR required for promotion from the post of Inspector to Superintendent of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Central Excise is 4 and above and as the applicant has secured 4 and above in all the relevant years, there was no reason for the DPC not to have recommended his case for promotion. The applicant emphasizes that the decision of the DPC that, because of the adverse remarks of both the reporting and reviewing officers for the year 2019-20, the applicant's case has not been recommended for promotion is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable.
To that, the respondents have replied about the attributes of the applicant or the grading received by him during different assessment years or on his contention that he has been discharging his duties with the utmost sincerity and honesty and thereby has earned excellent grading in all years except one year. It is a fact that the DPC, while discharging its duty of assessing the officer for promotion (as per prescribed DPC guidelines issued by DoPT from time to time), has recorded its findings in the APAR for the year 2019-20, though the officer met the benchmark of 'Good' (numerical grading of 4.0), considering serious adverse remarks by both the reporting and reviewing officers, the Committee assessed the said officer as 'Unfit' for promotion which is referred in para 18 of Minutes of DPC meeting held on 2.1.2024 furnished as Annexure R-4. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE We have examined the contents of Annexure R-4 dated 2.1.2024 at paragraph 18 wherein the following are mentioned:
"In the case of Shri.Rahul Sachan (Sl.No.36 in the eligibility list,), the Committee observed that in the APAR for the year 2019-20, though the officer has met the benchmark of 'Good' (numerical grading of 4.0), considering serious adverse remarks by both the reporting and reviewing officers, the Committee assessed the said officer as 'Unfit'."
Clearly, the decision of the Committee had been based on the consideration of serious adverse remarks by both the reporting officer and reviewing officer for the two periods of APAR for the year 2019- 2020.
It is also pointed out that the DoP&T has issued an O.M No.22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989 with the subject "Departmental Promotion Committee and related matters - Consolidated Instructions on -" wherein inter-alia other things at paragraph 6.2.1 very detailed instructions are there on confidential reports particularly in paragraph (b), it mentions that:
" The DPC should assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the CRs for 5 preceding years. However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the DPC should see record with SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE particular reference to the CRs for the years equal to the required qualifying service. (If more than one CR has been written for a particular year, all the CRs for the relevant year shall be considered together as the CR for one year)."
Further, it is emphasized in paragraph (e) of 6.2.1 that:
"The DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs, because it has been noticed that some times the overall grading in a CR may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes."
Hence, the DPC Committee had full discretion to assess all aspects of the APAR, including overall grading along with all the contents of the relevant APAR, and after considering all the entries in the APAR, in the case of the applicant the DPC has taken a decision and, for the year 2019-2020, all the overall grading of the applicant was 4 for both part I and part II, but there were clearly adverse entries in both his APARs; which has neither been further challenged nor expunged. We can see that the adverse entries still remain in his APARs. It is not the case of the applicant that he was not informed of the adverse entries. The fact placed before us is that he had challenged those adverse entries, unsuccessfully, and his challenge did not result in expungement of those entries, and the applicant left the process midway and allowed those adverse entries in his APARs on record. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE We have examined the APARs of the applicant for the years 2019-2020 Part I and Part II, wherein the following entries are there. The pen picture by the Reporting Authority (SriVenkatesh.S) Superintendent mentions the following:
"The objectives of the position held and the tasks Shri Rahul Sachan, Inspector, is required to perform are much more than what he has written. He has mentioned about preparing reports, maintenance of registers, calling the taxpayers to apply under SVLDRS, Monitoring of non-filing of returns, preparation of GSTR 3A notices. E-way bill verification, physical verification for some taxpayer's registration etc. Apart from all these the major objective of the work of the position held by him being an Inspector in a Range is Collection of Revenue and prevention of leakage of revenue, which he has not mentioned. This shows that the officer does not know the basic task of an Executive Officer.
Further, he claims to have accomplished certain tasks. Most of the tasks he claims to have accomplished are only clerical in nature which do not require any Executive skills. However these tasks were also performed after continuous follow up. Further, the registers were not updated and Inspection Note of the Range was not done by the office as claimed by him.
The Officer has hardly maintained any discipline, punctuality, diligence and decorum in performing his official duties during the reporting period. He has not shown any discipline either in maintenance of official files and registers or records. On very rare occasions he has reached office on time, I.e., at 9.30. He would go on leave but would not report after SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE expiry of leave. After joining the office, he would not apply for extension of leave. He was not meticulous in performing official duties in as much as the undersigned had to correct even the routine reports put up by him. He used to keep the workplace around him in a shabby manner. He would not plan to accomplish work allotted to him and therefore had to be reminded constantly. Being very callous in nature, his quality of output was below par. He has not done any work which is analytical in nature. Having been appointed as an Executive Officer, the attitude of the officer towards work has never been noteworthy. Whenever his Superintendent had to attend the work of another range located at a different city, as a responsible officer, ideally he should be holding the fort. Instead, he would absent himself from office which shows that he had no sense of responsibility. He has portrayed Indiscipline in whatever little work he has done. During the reporting period, his communication with the superior officer was very rude. He has shown gross insubordination whenever any work is assigned to him, many a times he has shouted when the undersigned has tried to correct his behaviour. His attitude towards work is very negative and therefore he does not possess leadership qualities, or capacity to work team spirit or time limit. His knowledge of law is very poor which has affected his decision making ability as well. He was unable to co-ordinate either with his reporting officer or with the tax payers. The only co-ordination being an executive officer he did was to share the mobile number of his Superintendent with the tax payers whenever they visit office with some queries and Superintendent was not available in office. Shri Rahul Sachan, Inspector was posted to Madikeri Range during February 2019. Timing of transfer was unusual as such outstation transfers are effected only during Annual General Transfers. It SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE was later learnt that Shri Rahul Sachan, Inspector, had the habit of absenting himself from office by proceeding on unauthorised leave. However, the undersigned, without having prejudice about his previous record, tried to develop him into a good executive officer. All the efforts made by the Superintendent to motivate him and develop him into a good officer have been taken negatively by the officer and he has abused and yelled at the undersigned for trying to correct his behaviour. All the oral persuasions, counselling, and warnings had no effect on the Officer. Therefore, many a times work was assigned to the officer through written communication either through mail/whatsapp message/letter. However, as the officer did not relent to any of the persuasive actions, and his mis-conduct crossed the tolerance limit of the Superintendent, written explanation was called for, a copy of which is enclosed to the appraisal."
It is further substantiated by the Reviewing Authority (Smt.Pallavi Anand) in paragraph 3 of Section 4 in the following terms:
"I agree with the observations made by reporting officer. It is seen that the officer did not maintained any discipline, punctuality, diligence and decorum in performing his official duties during the reporting period. His Interest towards official work was also very minimal and there was no effort from his side to learn the work and enhance his knowledge. Further to yell and abuse his reporting officer should be considered as serious breach of discipline on his part."
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE In the second period report of the said year, , the reporting officer (Sri.Venkatesh.S) Superintendent has made the following remarks:
"The objectives of the position held and the tasks Shri Rahul Sachan, Inspector, is required to perform are much more than what he has written. He has mentioned about preparing reports, maintenance of registers, calling the taxpayers to apply under SVLDRS, Monitoring of non filing of returns, preparation of GSTR 3A notices E-way bill verification, physical verification for some taxpayers registration etc. Apart from all these, the major objective of the work of the position held by him being an inspector in a Range is Collection of revenue and prevention of leakage of revenue, which he has not mentioned. This shows that the officer does not know the basic task of an Executive Officer.
Further, he claims to have accomplished certain tasks. Most of the tasks he claims to have accomplished are only clerical in nature which do not require any Executive skills. However these tasks were also performed after continuous follow up. Further, the registers were not updated and inspection Note of the Range was not done by the officer as claimed by him.
The Officer has hardly maintained any discipline, punctuality, diligence and decorum in performing his duties during the reporting period. He has not shown any discipline either in maintenance of office files and registers or records. On very rare occasions he has reached office on time, i.e, at 9.30. He would go on leave but would not report after expiry of leave. After joining the office, he would not apply for extension of leave. He was not meticulous in SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE performing official duties in as much as the undersigned had to correct even the routine reports put up by him. He used to keep the workplace around him in a shabby manner. He would not plan to accomplish work allotted to him and therefore had to be reminded constantly. Being very callous in nature, his quality of output was below par. He has not done any work which is analytical in nature. Having been appointed as an Executive Officer, the attitude of the officer towards work has never been noteworthy. Whenever his Superintendent had to attend the work of another range located at a different city, as a responsible officer, ideally he should be holding the fort. Instead, he would absent himself from office which shows that he had no sense of responsibility. He has portrayed indiscipline in whatever little work he has done. During the reporting period, his communication with the superior officer was very rude. He has shown gross insubordination whenever any work is assigned to him. Many a times he has shouted when the undersigned has tried to correct his behaviour. His attitude towards work is very negative and therefore he does not possess leadership qualities, or capacity to work in team spirit or time limit. His knowledge of law is very poor which has affected his decision making ability as well. He was unable to co-ordinate either with his reporting officer or with the tax payers. The only co- ordination being an executive officer he did was to share the mobile number of his Superintendent with the taxpayers whenever they visit office with some queries and Superintendent was not available in office. Shri Rahul Sachan, Inspector was posted to Madikeri Range during February 2019. Timing of transfer was unusual as such outstation transfers are effected only during Annual General Transfers. It was later learnt that Shri Rahul Sachan, Inspector, had the habit of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE absenting himself from office by proceeding on unauthorised leave. However, the undersigned, without having prejudice about his previous record, tried to develop him into a good executive officer. All the efforts made by the Superintendent to motivate him and develop him into a good officer have been taken negatively by the officer and he has abused and yelled at the undersigned for trying to correct his behaviour. All the oral persuasions, counselling, and warnings had no effect on the Officer. Therefore, many a times work was assigned to the officer through written communication either through mail/whatsapp message/letter. However, as the officer did not relent to any of the persuasive actions, and his mis-conduct crossed the tolerance limit of the Superintendent, written explanation was called for, a copy of which is enclosed to the appraisal"
The Reviewing Authority (Sri.N.B.Harish Ballal) has, in paragraph 3, mentioned in his pen picture of the officer the following:
"I agree with the observations made by reporting officer. It is seen that the officer did not maintained any discipline, punctuality, diligence and de corum in performing his official duties during the reporting period. His interest towards official work was also very minimal and there was no effort from his side to learn the work and enhance his knowledge. Further to yell and abuse his reporting officer should be considered as serious breach of discipline on his part."
Clearly, as asserted by the respondents, very detailed multiple adverse entries are there in his APARs. It is also not denied that he was orally cautioned on several occasions, and when such persuasion SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE failed he was also served with written notice calling his explanation, and after due process only adverse entries mentioned in his APARs. He was served with copies of these APARs in time, which he contested initially, but he did not any further challenge this as his overall assessment was 4, which he thought was sufficient for being eligible for promotion. However, without its challenge at appropriate time and occasion, these adverse entries have become final and have been rightly taken into account by the DPC Committee for not considering the applicant for promotion initially. Hence, taking overall facts and circumstances placed before us by the parties, we are unable to see any discrepancy in the decisions of the respondents.
10. Further, in paragraph 5.3 the applicant submits for the year 2019-20 there were two reports one for the period from 1.4.2019 to 22.11.2019 [Annexure A6(1)] and another for the period from 23.11.2019 to 31.3.2020 [Annexure A6(2)]. This was because there was a change in the officer functioning as the reviewing authority. While the reviewing authority in Annexure A6(1) was Smt. Pallavi Anand it was Shri N.B. Harish Ballal in Annexure A6(2). However, the reporting authority was the same official viz., Shri Venkatesh S, Superintendent for the entire year 2019-2020 under report. The reporting officer has not given the remarks for the sincere duty SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE rendered by the applicant but has given 4/10 marks for extraneous reasons in both the reports and the respective reviewing officers have concurred with the remarks given by the reporting officer without assigning why they agree with the grading of the reporting officer. On receipt of both the reports the applicant submitted representations which have not yielded any improvement in his grading. But in view of the fact that as per DOPT OM dated 23.7.2009 laying down that grading between 4 and 6 and short of 6 will be rated as 'good' and given a score of 5 and in view of the fact that 'good' is the bench mark for promotion the applicant did not deem it further escalate the matter. A true copy of the DOPT OM dated 23.7.2009 with necessary annexures is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A13. Therefore, it can be seen that despite possessing the required bench mark for all the years under consideration the DPC has not considered the applicant 'fit' for promotion and thereby the applicant has been unjustly denied promotion. In the circumstances the impugned letters are liable to be set aside.
To which the respondents have replied that after the applicant preferred representation against the said adverse remarks in his APAR of 2019-20, the competent authority for deciding such representations has not expunged the adverse remarks nor upgraded the grading. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Hence this aspect has remained unchanged, and reached finality. It is clear that in terms of the DPC guidelines referred above, after making an overall assessment of entries in the CRs (i.e. APARs) of the applicant, the DPC had come to the conclusion and recommended the applicant as 'Unfit' for promotion.
In the rejoinder, the applicant asserts that the respondents, despite accepting that the APAR for the year was 'good', the DPC has taken into account the adverse remarks given by the reporting office in both the parts of the report. The decision of the DPC in assessing the applicant as 'unfit' is violative of the DOPT OMs referred to by the respondents themselves in Annexures R1 to R3. Therefore, the applicant has a genuine grievance. In the circumstances, the reply in this regard is totally denied.
We have examined those entries in the APAR in detail, and it is not denied by the parties that although those adverse entries were challenged by the applicant, they were not expunged by the appropriate authority and the applicant left the said entry as such, and he did not come before this Tribunal or any other Forum to further agitate against such adverse entries. Once the applicant has not challenged the said entries further, they have already become formally SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE final, and their consequences cannot be escaped by the applicant. At this stage, the applicant coming and asking us to look into the entries or to ignore them completely which have already become final in his APAR is not acceptable. At this stage it is impermissible to ignore them. And further to argue that the DPC should have completely ignored such unexpunged final entries in the applicant's APAR labelling them as not important and to canvass that only the overall grading should be considered is not supported by either any prescribed rules, rulings, DPC practice or precedents. This line of argument does not appear to be a convincing argument. The applicant had legal remedies against adverse entries if he found them improper, illegal, arbitrary and unjust and unsustainable, which option, , the applicant had not chosen and used in time. Hence, in our considered opinion the estoppel will apply for him to come before us at this stage of consideration of his promotion by the DPC and tell us that either the DPC or the Court should ignore those adverse entries in his APARs which have already become final.
11. In paragraph 5.4, the applicant refers to the "Guidelines for DPC's" from SWAMY'S COMPILATION of SENIORITY AND PROMOTION 2014 edition. A perusal of the said guidelines makes out that the DPC should not be guided by overall grading that SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE may be recorded in the CRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. In the present case except for one year the applicant has obtained very good grading in all years and merely because there is one particular alleged adverse remark that should not have been considered to arrive at the finding of 'not fit' by the DPC. Therefore, the impugned reply is unjust, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
12. Further in paragraph 5.5, the applicant submits that a perusal of the five APARs for the years under consideration would clearly show that the performance of the applicant in the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 has been very good as graded by the different officers under whom the applicant was working. In the year 2019-20 the performance of the applicant has drastically come down to attract a grading of only '4' but again in the subsequent years the performance of the applicant has been exceedingly good. Therefore, it is to be evaluated as how a person's performance is steadily progressing and suddenly falls very low only in one year and again from subsequent years the performance goes up. In fact in his latest APAR the applicant has secured 10 out of 10. Therefore, the DPC ought to have come to a conclusion that the alleged adverse remark should not be taken to grade him as 'unfit and in that view of the matter the applicant SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE ought to have been treated as fit and should have been promoted. In the circumstances the impugned reply is unjust, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
To which the respondents have replied that the applicant is citing the very provision which enabled the DPC to make its own assessment on the basis of the entries contained in his CR/APAR. The argument of the applicant for the DPC to look at overall performance and ignore crucial details of the applicants' performance of one year (within reckonable period) which contains serious adverse remarks does not merit considering.
Basically, in these paragraphs, the applicant wants to argue that an officer's performance will always be in a uniform way for all the five or more years. This argument also implies that the working of each year and period is not important. In the applicant's opinion each period should not be assessed individually for work and the conduct of an officer during that particular year, in effect his argument in that four years good work and assessment will override any adverse performance and appraisal during any one particular year. In the opinion of the applicant if his performance is good in four years, then, for the fifth year, it may be inferred to be good by mere implication. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE The applicant believes in a dictum that an officer rated good for four years will always be good in the fifth year also. But this argument goes against the grain of writing APAR based on performance during a particular year, which may always vary from year to year. It is a wrong presumption that if an officer is assessed good for four years for fifth year if adverse entry was in his APAR, the same should be ignored and nullified. It may be incorrect to say that anything adverse written and confirmed in the APAR of any one year is not so important and could be completely ignored, and that, overall assessment of the officer in mere numerical rating of the officer is important.
Guidelines of the DPC is very clear that, the DPC should not be guided by overall grading (alone) that may be recorded in the CRs, but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries (meaning overall, all the entries, everything mentioned therein) "in the CRs". We agree with the understanding of this clause and disagree with the assertion of the applicant. We find that clearly more discretions were provided in the rules as discussed earlier to the DPC. Further, the DPC consists of very senior officers, and it is not one person who is assessing the APARs of the official for the 5 years periods. In this particular case, the Minutes of the DPC dated 2.1.2024 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE discloses that the following officers examined his records and collectively took a decision:
"Shri.Roopam Kapoor, Chairman
Principal Chief Commissioner
Central Tax, Bengaluru Zone
Shri.Santosh Kumar Mohanty Member
Commissioner
Bengaluru South Commissionerate
Dr.Kotraswamy M Co-opted Member
Commissioner,
Bengaluru North Commissionerate
Shri.Dayanandan T Member
Additional Commissioner (PCCO)
Central Tax, Bengaluru
Dr.Somanna C Co-opted Member
Additional Commissioner
Mangaluru Customs Commissionerate "
Furthermore, it is noted that just not one reporting officer, Shri. Venkatesh S, Superintendent, has alone made adverse entries against the applicant, equally, the two different reviewing officers, Smt. Pallavi Anand and Shri.N.B. Harish Ballal have both independently also assessed him adversely and agreed with the reporting officer. We find on record that the two reviewing officers have also recorded independently certain remarks about the applicant which are clearly adverse in nature. Hence, three officers have assessed and recorded SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE adverse entries in the applicant's APAR and none of the three were happy with the conduct of the officer.
Today, when all the APARs are communicated to the concerned official and his response and challenge to the entries is taken into account by the authority and confirmed by the competent authority after rejecting the applicant's contention, it is not open for the officer to argue before us to ignore the same as he is not satisfied with them. In general, unless there are certain grounds, the reporting officer or reviewing officer do not record adverse entries. They have to defend any such entries. If three officers have recorded adverse entries and same have been confirmed after challenge by the authority, those entries have been rightly considered and assessed by the five other officers sitting in the DPC. We are of the opinion that, having rightly considered overall records of his five years work and performance as mentioned in various columns of the APARs the DPC Committee has taken a decision to consider him 'unfit' for promotion. At this stage it is not acceptable to say that if an officer is assessed by 4 years differently in the 5th year he shall be assessed in the same way or in an average way i.e. if that is the conclusion, then there is no sanctity left about any such assessment of an officer which has to be years specific and which should strictly depend on his performance and SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 31 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE conduct and achievements and shortcomings during that particular year. And in practice it is a fact that such performance of any officer can always vary for different time period. An official assessed outstanding for four years cannot take it for granted that the authorities are duty bound to assess him outstanding for the 5th year compulsorily without him putting in equal effort, diligence and turning out quality work. Four years of good work assessment cannot give any one any license to an officer to relax during the fifth year. Other years' good performance, if has to nullify the performance of the officer of another years, then the meaning of the annual confidential report and APAR assessment year will lose its sanctity completely. Any argument in support of such overlaps will be counter productive and will completely compromise the process of writing APARs. In the case of the applicant, the APARs were written long back, and he had an opportunity to challenge them. His challenge was unsuccessful, and the adverse entries are not expunged. At this stage, estoppel will apply for him to say that he wanted the confirmed adverse entries in his APAR just ignored. The case before us is about DPC proceeding and promotion and not the adverse entries in the APAR and at this late stage the confirmed adverse entries cannot be either expunged or ignored. And rightly the DPC has considered SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 32 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE overall entries in the APAR of the applicant and arrived at the decision to consider the applicant unfit.
13. In paragraph 5.6, the applicant mentions that it is crucial for the DPC to consider the overall picture in the five APARs of the government servant while considering for promotion and because of one or two remarks in one particular year should not come in the way of the DPC to declare a government servant as 'unfit for promotion. The DPC should appropriately substantiate its own assessment by giving justiciable and sustainable reasons. In this case, the DPC has not done its duty by fully substantiating its own assessment and was guided by one alleged adverse remark given in one year.
We have examined this contention and we find that the argument that the DPC decision is on one remark is not true, as three different officers have given adverse remarks in much descriptive detail, and there were many remarks which are there on record as discussed earlier in preceding paragraphs, and the fact is that those were challenged by the applicant in appropriate proceedings, and they were not expunged. Hence, the DPC in our considered opinion had rightly taken into consideration those adverse remarks into account and considered the applicant as unfit for promotion. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 33 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
14. Further in paragraph 5.7, the applicant says that if the same treatment is given in the next few years by respective DPCs the applicant would not get his promotion even in the next four years because, as per existing rules, the DPC would consider five preceding years' APARS and there is a possibility that the applicant would not be treated as fit for the same reason. In between many of his juniors would become his seniors, and in fact, even now, the applicant is working under his own junior because of the denial of promotion.
But clearly, this argument is devoid of merit as it is a fact accepted by both parties at the time of argument that the applicant has already been considered by the subsequent DPC, and he has been promoted. Hence, clearly, the DPC had been taking the overall assessment of all the years in a dynamic way.
15. In paragraph 5.8, the applicant mentions that the APAR for 2019-20 was written by the reporting officer at Kodagu (Madikeri) Division from Mysore Commissionerate after his transfer from Mysore. Prior to this transfer, the applicant was residing in Mysore and his wife was in the advanced stage of her pregnancy. Therefore, the applicant had to by force continue to reside in Mysore because of the fact that his wife was undergoing treatment and because of this SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 34 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE there were a few occasions when the applicant was a little late to reach office owing the travel time from Mysore to Madikeri, but he used to sit late and would finish the assigned tasks. All these were in the knowledge of the reporting officer who because of extraneous reasons, has given the grading of '4' which is not the grading which the applicant deserved. However, in view of the fact that grading '4' would be treated as 'good' and the benchmark 'good' is sufficient for promotion from the post of Inspector to Superintendent, the applicant did not want to antagonize the department by escalating the issue. He was never expecting that this would come in the way of his promotion. Therefore, the applicant humbly submits that the DPC should have considered overall remarks in all five years' APARs and ought not to have graded the applicant as "not fit because of adverse remarks in one APAR. Consequently, the impugned reply is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable.
To which the respondents have in their reply statement submitted that the apprehension of the applicant here of not being promoted as Superintendent for the next 4 years while his juniors may get promotion, is unfounded. The applicant was again considered for the Superintendent's promotion to the subsequent vacancy year of 2024. Here, while considering his case in the DPC for the year 2024 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 35 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE and keeping in view the clarifications contained in the CBIC letter dated 6.5.2024 cited above along with DPC guidelines given under para 6.2.1 (a) of DoPT OM dated 10.4.1989 for considering APARs of equal number of years of all the officers (which was for the years 2020-21 to 2022-23), the said APAR of 2019-20 of the applicant being outside the reckonable APAR period was not taken into account by the DPC of 2024. Hence, the DPC for the year 2024 assessed the APARs of 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 of all officers under consideration, including the applicant in the present OA and the applicant was recommended for Superintendent promotion for vacancy year 2024. As per this recommendation, the applicant has been promoted to Superintendent vide Establishment Order No.167/2024 (Annexure R-7). Hence, the argument or apprehension of the applicant here of not being promoted to Superintendent for the next 4 years, while his juniors may get promotion, does not merit consideration.
Clearly, we also cannot see any such point which the applicant wants to make in this paragraph, and they are not in any way convincing us to consider the case of the applicant for retrospective promotion from the date of the earlier DPC. Further, the respondents have said that reliance may be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 36 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Supreme Court in the cases of UPSC v. L.P Tiwari and Ors. (2006 12 SCC 317) (Annexure R-8) and in the Union of India v. S.K.Goel and Others (2007 14 SCC 641) (Annexure R-9) as well as in K.Rajaiah (2005 10 SCC 15) (Annexure R-10) and State of Bihar v. Bateshwar Sharma (AIRONLINE 1997 SC 482) (Annexure R-11 which call for limited interference by judicial review with regard to recommendations of the DPC. Specifically, in the case of UOI v. S.K.Goel & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that DPCs enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the present O.A challenging the decision of the DPC does not merit consideration.
We have gone through these orders regarding judicial scrutiny and review of DPC orders, and in this case, the DPC, consisting of 5 officers, have considered the APAR adverse entries which have not been expunged even after challenge, and the entries have been made by three different officers, one reporting officer and two reviewing officers. Hence, the argument of the applicant that one year's adverse entries should be negated by the 4 years' better entries in the APAR may not be a good argument at all. We do not find any malafide has been established either on the part of those three officers who wrote SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 37 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE APARs of the applicant or those five who sat in the DPC of the applicant. We do not find any arbitrary or perverse decision or that there was any miscarriage of justice.
16. In paragraph 5.9, the applicant produces herewith copy of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.T Ramesh v State of Karnataka and another reported in AIR 2007 SC 1262 and marks the same as ANNEXURE A15. In para 21 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "... the court still has to make an assessment as to whether the said remarks were merited by the appellant on account of his consistently good performance. Even his outburst against the respondent No.2 in his representation appears to be a fallout of such presumptions, which was certainly not expected of an officer of the rank and calibre of the applicant. But in our view, the same should not come in the way of an otherwise unblemished and outstanding career." The finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
We have gone through the said judgment. The facts and issues of the said case are very different from the case in hand. In the said case before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.T Ramesh v. State of Karnataka and Another in Civil Appeal No.868 of 2007 (2007 AIR SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 38 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE SC 1262) the subject matter under challenge was the quashing of ACR remarks itself, which is not the case before us. That stage has already long crossed in this case, and the entries in the APARs have been finally confirmed after due challenge and those entries have long become final. Before us is merely, his challenge of the DPC decision of considering the applicant unfit and, consequently, not giving promotion to the applicant due to his already settled adverse entries in his APAR. Hence, both the cases are not comparable cases. Also, no general rule can be gleaned from the said case which is pointed out being applied to this case in hand, wherein, based on the specific facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the said case in favour of the applicant therein. It may be a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation that in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled to ignore any and all adverse entry if it is merely recorded in any one APAR, if other four APARs are otherwise good, as asserted by the applicant. The applicant before us did not further challenge the adverse entries in his APARs, and without challenging ACR entries the applicant wants the DPC, as well as the court, to ignore those entries, which have become final and which are clearly adverse and which are written by three different officers. And those entries are not only about some mere oral outburst and being an anecdote of not so SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 39 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE good relationship between the reported officer, and reporting and reviewing officers. We can see that adverse entries in the APARs of the applicant are diverse, multiple and serious, as is evident from the record. Hence, this cited precedent does not buttress the case of the applicant.
17. In paragraph 5.10, the applicant says that he obtained a copy of the Minutes of DPC held on 2.1.2024 under Right to Information Act and a copy thereof is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A16. The name of the applicant is at page No714 at Sl. No. 36 and against his name the finding of the DPC is mentioned as 'unfit. But no explanation is forthcoming anywhere in this Minutes as to why the applicant has been declared as unfit. Therefore, the DPC finding is arbitrary, unjust and bad. Therefore, the finding of the third respondent in the impugned reply dated 5.2.2024 that the DPC has found the applicant meeting the grading but the DPC assessed the applicant as unfit considering the adverse remarks by both the reporting and reviewing officers is purely imaginary and without any basis. Therefore, the impugned reply is liable to be set aside as the same is unsustainable.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 40 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE To which the respondents have replied that the applicant is admitting before the Tribunal that he obtained a copy of the Minutes of DPC held on 2.1.2024 under RTI Act and has produced a copy thereof (Annexure A-16) to the Tribunal. However, the respondents would like to categorically submit that no such RTI application was preferred by the applicant nor any copy of Minutes of the DPC has been furnished to him. An online RTI application dated 5.1.2024 from another RTI applicant named Shri.Harman from Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh was actually received by the respondents through electronic mode, in response to which copy of Minutes of DPC held on 2.1.2024 were furnished to that RTI Applicant. The actual copy of the said RTI application dated 5.1.2024 and material information furnished in the form of severed copy of Minutes of DPC in reply to the said RTI Application is enclosed herein (as Annexure R-12). Since both the applicants i.e. the RTI Applicant (Shri Harman) and the applicant of present OA (Shri Rahul Sachan) were not the same, certain portions of the Minutes were severed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 while providing information to the said RTI Application. This, keeping in view the confidential nature of the information and third-party information contained therein as well as the invasion of the privacy of the individuals to whom such SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 41 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE information relates. However, now in the present OA, this same severed copy of Minutes of the said DPC (which was in fact furnished to an RTI applicant named Shri.Harman) has been furnished by this applicant Shri Rahul Sachan to this Tribunal. From this, it is evident that the applicant in the present OA has clearly mis-represented himself to obtain information and misused the salient.231 tenets of the RTI Act. Notwithstanding this misrepresentation or misuse of RTI Act, it is to humbly submit that it was fully justified in furnishing severed information to a different (third-party) individual/RTI applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, there is no justification in the argument of applicant here in the present OA as to why no explanation was forthcoming anywhere in this Minutes as to why the applicant has been declared as Unfit, when clearly the severed information given in the copy of Minutes of the DPC was obtained by misrepresenting himself before the RTI authorities. Another point to be pondered here is that as per the provisions of RTI Act, this information on Minutes of the DPC meeting held on 2.1.2024 would have been provided to the concerned RTI Applicant within due date of 30 days from receipt of the RTI Application dated 5.1.2024 i.e. by 5.2.2024. In addition, the respondents had clearly and repeatedly replied to his representations vide letters dated 5.2.2024 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 42 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE and 19.2.2024, communicating to him the clear reasons as to why the applicant was not promoted. Despite these facts available to the applicant, the contention of the applicant here that no explanation is forthcoming anywhere as to why the applicant has been declared unfit does not merit consideration.
To which the applicant has not further contested or clarified in his rejoinder, and he skips paragraph 5.10 replies.
18. Clearly, what was asserted by the respondents is true, as we can see in the copy furnished by the applicant that, in many places, like after paragraph 12, 14, 17 etc., it is clearly mentioned severed in terms of Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. Hence, we find clearly that in his paragraph 5.10 of the grounds made out by the applicant in the Original Application, he is wilfully and knowingly misinterpreting and misrepresenting before this Tribunal as if he rightly obtained a copy of Minutes of DPC held on 2.1.2024. And we are sorry that his mis-representations clearly shows that he has not come before us with clean hands. Hence, the contents of this paragraph in no way buttressed the case of the applicant.
19. Considering the Hon'ble Apex Court rulings in Union of India and Anr. v. S.K. Goel and Others (AIR 2007 SC 1199), it should be SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 43 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE clear that there is limited scope for judicial review and interpretation of the recommendations of the DPC, which consists of multiple experts from the said department. In this particular case, there were five experts in the DPC. We can find that the DPC has gone into the relevant years' APARs of all the officials who were in the zone of consideration, and they have rightly and justifiably considered all the entries in the APAR and, after overall assessment of the entries which were recorded by multiple officers (one reporting officer and two reviewing officers who had given adverse entries and the said adverse entries had not been expunged even after challenge and have become final after no further challenge). The DPC has come to a certain decision about considering the applicant unfit for the said year promotion, and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the said decision.
20. After careful consideration of all the records placed before us and evaluating rival contentions, in our considered opinion, no cogent or coherent ground has been made out before us in this Original Application to exercise our limited discretion of judicial review in this case. We are of the considered opinion that the citation made by the applicant in the case of S.T Ramesh v. State of Karnataka and Anr. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.01.28 10:52:48+05'30' 44 O.A.No.170/373/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Reported in 2007, AIR (SC) 1262 is not applicable in this case, as in the said case, the entries in APAR were challenged, whereas the present case is regarding how final and un-expunged adverse entries are assessed by the DPC for promotion.
21. Considering all the above, we pass the following orders:-
We hereby dismiss this Original Application as devoid of merit. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
sv
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.01.28
10:52:48+05'30'