Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

WP(C) No. 1193 of 2018                                                    Page 2
                                                                    Page |3


          Sl.No.                  Year               APAR Grading


              1               2009 to 2010             Very Good


              2               2010 to 2011             Very Good


              3               2011 to 2012             Very Good


              4               2012 to 2013             Outstanding


              5          01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014      Outstanding


              6          01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015      Outstanding


              7          01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016      Outstanding


              8          23/06/2016 to 31/03/2017   Good (below bench

                                                          mark)


              9          01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018      Very Good




[3].          According to the petitioner, the office has recorded his

[12]. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

WP(C) No. 1193 of 2018                                                 Page 8
                                                                      Page |9

[13].         In short, the submission of the petitioner is that with malafide

intention, the authorities have recorded the grading of the petitioner for the period 23.06.2016 to 31.03.2017 as "good", which is the below bench mark and the said grading affects the promotion of the petitioner to the post of DIG from Commandant. Referring to the details of the numerical grading given in APAR 2016 by the reporting/reviewing authorities and the remarks, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the reporting/reviewing authorities have acted in an arbitrary manner and has exceeded their powers with respect to their duties for reviewing of the APAR. [14]. At this stage, it would be appropriate to stated the APAR grading of the petitioner from 2009 to 2018, which reads as under:

[25]. Thus, in all the years since 2007-2008, the petitioner has been graded as either 'outstanding' or 'very good'. Downgrading the APAR in 2016-2017 to 'good' is malafide and arbitrary and the same is not in consonance with the aforesaid decision cited by the petitioner. [26]. The system of APAR has two principal objectives viz., (i) improve the performance of subordinate in his present job and (ii) assess the potentialities of the subordinate and prepare him through appropriate feedback and guidance for future possible opportunities in service. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner the basic philosophy underlying APAR is both the superiors and his subordinate should be necessarily aware of the ultimate goal of the orgnisation, which can be WP(C) No. 1193 of 2018 Page 17 P a g e | 18 achieved through the joint efforts of both of them. However, in the instant case, the 2016-2017 APAR grading assessed by the reporting/reviewing authorities solves no purpose.

[29]. The various guidelines laid down by the DoPT from time to time, it becomes abundantly clear that neither the reporting authority nor the reviewing authority, indeed not even the accepting authority can adopt an erratic and a casual approach in evaluating the overall performance of an officer on the various parameters, on which he is required to be WP(C) No. 1193 of 2018 Page 18 P a g e | 19 assessed. The adverse grading in the APAR has given the petitioner constant and extreme stress because throughout his service the petitioner has maintained high standards of integrity, has worked with utmost dedication and devotion for the organization. In the instant case, it is clear that the reporting authority, reviewing authority as well as the appellate authority have not maintained the rule/instructions and procedure while writing APAR and also the grading "good" recorded by the authorities for the period in question is without application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be excluded while considering for promotion. [30]. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the APAR grading "good" awarded to the petitioner for the period from 23.06.2016 to 31.03.2017 is set aside. Since the authorities have totally misapplied its mind, no useful purpose would be served in directing the authorities to reconsider the APAR grading referred to above, this Court directs that the said year's APAR grading be excluded while considering the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion and consider the case of the petitioner for his next promotion in accordance with the relevant rules. No costs.