Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: apar in Kalaiarasi R vs Central Silk Board on 18 September, 2024Matching Fragments
2. This Original Application is filed on various grounds as narrated in paragraphs 5(a) to 5(f) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the applicant are that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order No.CSB-8(1)/2016-ES.II dated 21/29.08.2023 of respondents (Central Silk Board) who have refused to expunge false adverse remarks made in the applicant's APAR of 2015-16 and to consider her promotion at par with her junior. A copy of the impugned order dated 21/29.08.2023 is produced as Annexure A-1. It is submitted by the applicant that the alleged adverse remarks made on 26.10.2016 i.e., in the year 2016-2017. The word used by the Reporting Officer i.e. 'Recently' is not clear, whether it pertains to 2015-16 or 2016-17, since it is made in the year 2016-17 without any specific incident. Cryptic, vague remarks made, which have got no specific incident, date, or place. As per existing procedure, before marking such an entry, the Reporting Officer should satisfy himself that his own conclusion has been arrived at only after a reasonable opportunity has been given to the official to present her case relating to that incident. No such opportunity was given to the applicant before making such remarks in the APAR. The applicant further contends that every warning/reprimand/displeasure issued in writing O.A.Nos.170/000610/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE need not automatically find a place in the confidential report. Only cases in which despite such warning, etc., the officer has not improved, appropriate mention of such warning, etc., may be made in the confidential report.
13. Pursuant to which, the competent authority examined the case and passed the following order (the challenged impugned order):
O.A.Nos.170/000610/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE " Sub: Disposal of Appeal/Memorial made by Ms.R.Kalaiarasi, Stenographer, CSB-regarding Ref: Her Memorial dated 8.6.2020 Ms. R. Kalalarasi while working as Stenographer (Grade-II) has preferred an Appeal / Memorial dated 08th June 2020 with a request to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in her APAR for the year 2015-16. Her Appeal / Memorial was referred to the Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi by the CSB, Bengaluru for disposal by the Joint Secretary (Silk) Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi, who is the Vice Chairperson, CSB as her earlier representation dated 05-12-2016 for upgradation of the grading recorded in her APAR for the year 2015-16 was rejected by the Member-Secretary, which was communicated to her vide CSB's Intimation No.CSB-8(1)/2016- ES II dated 07-03-2017.
2) I had received an overall grading 'Outstanding' in respect of my performance during the Year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 by my Reporting Officer, Shri K. K. Shetty, Joint Secretary (Technical), CSB, Bangalore.
3) And in spite of the letter of appreciation / Certificate issued to me during the period 2014- 15 by Ms. Ishita Roy, the then Member Secretary & CEO of the CSB, my grading (for the said period) stood reduced from Outstanding 'to' Very Good. On receipt of the same (i.e. my O.A.Nos.170/000610/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE APAR pertaining to the period 2014-15), I immediately approached my Reporting Officer (the said Shri K. K. Shetty), prior to giving my representation; and he agreed that due to large number of APARS to be written by him, he inadvertently graded me 'Very Good' and assured me that my APAR grading would be enhanced in the next Year (i.e.2015-16).
In paragraph (h), it mentions that no memorial or appeal against the rejection of the representation should be allowed six months after such rejection.
33. The sum and substance of the above said provisions are that the adverse entries in the APAR are to be carefully recorded based on substantive evidence and it should not be vague. After seeing the records and considering rival contentions, we do not find that in this particular case adverse entries in the APAR were recorded carefully based on substantive evidence. Unexplained silence of the reporting officer in his comment dated 26.12.2016 on the important alleged "adverse" entry issue raised in the representation of the applicant dated 5.12.2016 shows his negligence, carelessness, mischievousness and incompetence, which is required to be noted in his APAR, through due process to avoid any such recurrence.