Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it is the usual practice followed in the respondent organization that the employees of the organization are communicated about their APAR being available for collection and representation by circulating/ affixing a notice on the Notice Board. This practice is followed by all the employees without exception and the APARs are accordingly communicated to each and every employee. In the present case, the applicant had not approached the Appropriate Authority in spite of the notice regarding availability of APAR. Therefore, the applicant cannot take the plea that her APAR was not communicated to her. 6.1 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that almost every employee of ESIC Hospital, Joka had collected his/her copy of APAR. However, the applicant adopted a casual approach and took her own time to collect the copy of her APAR for the year 2017-18 on 29.07.2019, i.e., after more than one year. Even then, the applicant was supposed to make her representation for her non-acceptance of grading given by the Reporting Authority within 15 days of receipt of the APAR. However, the applicant made a representation after completion of the meeting and proceedings for MACP and circulation of Office Order 87 of 2019 and also after the stipulated time to represent against the APAR grading after receiving the copy of APAR on 29.07.2019. 6.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Screening Committee constituted earlier had considered the APAR grading for granting MACP as per 7th CPC. Therefore, only the employees whose APAR gradings were 'Very Good' in the last five years were considered for grant of MACP benefit. Subsequently, the Competent Authority directed the Committee to reconsider the matter in the light of DoPT guideline dated 22.10.2019. Accordingly the Committee reconsidered the matter and issued another Office Order no. 44 of 2020 dated 18.05.2020. Since the applicant possessed lower benchmark in the year 2017-18, the Committee did not consider the name of the applicant for granting MACP benefit as the applicant is not eligible for MACP even in the light of revised guideline dated 22.10.2019. 6.3 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant being a Staff Nurse, the Reporting Authority of the applicant is a senior Nursing Personnel like Nursing Sister or Assistant Nursing Superintendent (ANS). Awarding grading in an APAR of a subordinate staff by a superior authority is actually the evaluation/ assessment of the work of that particular subordinate staff by his/her superior authority. If the subordinate staff feels that his/her gradation/ recording was not appropriate, then she/he has the right to represent the matter before the Competent Authority to review her/his gradation/ recording within a stipulated time period. In the instant case, the applicant did not follow the same. Hence, the present appeal of the applicant is not justified.

6.4 Learned Counsel submits that the grading in the applicant's APAR was 5.6 which is 'Good' and as the respondent's Reporting Authority found her discharging her duties effectively, 'Good' grading was awarded to her. The grading in APAR is actually the evaluation of performances of an employee by his/her Controlling/ Reporting Authority. Since the APAR grading was 'Good', prior communication to the applicant was not considered necessary. He submits that the grading given in APAR for the period 2017-18 was 'Good' and hence there was no necessity of serving any notice or show cause/ charge sheet about the deterioration of her performance. Since her performance was 'Good' during the period 2017-18 questions of disqualification did not arise. The Reporting Authority may convey/issue Notice to the employee only if the grading in the APAR is below 4 (Average).

Under the circumstances, respondent's reasons for not considering her representation on the ground of such representation having been made after the stipulated period is untenable. The applicant has cited several judicial pronouncements holding that APAR has to be communicated in full to an employee inviting her representation if she is aggrieved by the entries in APAR including the grading obtained by her. The applicant cites the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in Suresh Babu (Supra) where the Hon'ble Court has directed that the applicant who did not have the required grade be granted promotion because the APAR was not communicated to him. 7.2 APAR is a review of the performance of an employee during a particular year. By definition, therefore, it is possible to rate an individual's performance differently in different years. Similarly the grading in APAR is based on an assessment of the employee's performance by her Reporting and Reviewing Officers who are best placed to undertake such assessment. There is a provision for making representation against the entries in the APAR within a stipulated period which is to be considered by the appropriate authority in the department. Ordinarily, in our opinion, there is no scope for a judicial intervention in a matter which is squarely in the domain of the executive. The applicant has no vested right to claim the same grading in her APAR year after year. We find no reason to interfere directly with the entries or gradings in the APAR.

Where Government servant has only one supervisory level above him as in the case of personal staff attached to officers, such communication shall be made after the reporting officer has completed the performance assessment.

(iii) The Section entrusted with the maintenance of APARs after its receipt shall disclose the same to the officer reported upon.

(iv) The concerned officer shall be given the opportunity to make any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the Report within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries in the APAR. The representation shall be restricted to the specific factual observations contained in the report leading to assessment of the officer in terms of attributes, work output etc. While communicating the entries, it shall be made clear that in case no representation is received within the fifteen days, it shall be deemed that he/she has no representation to make. If the concerned APAR Section does not receive any information from the concerned officer on or before fifteen days from the date of disclosure, the APAR will be treated as final." The para above stipulate that the APAR in full is to be communicated to the employee with the advice that representation, if any is to be made within a specified period. The DoPT OM or any other instruction is however silent on the exact procedure to be followed or the manner in which this communication is to be made. The respondents claim to have made this communication through a notice on notice board, which the applicant vehemently claims not to have seen. The fact remains that the applicant was not aware of her APAR grading in 2017-18 till the first list of employees who were granted financial upgradation was published on 19.07.2019. The applicant prays that the APAR for 2017-18 should be ignored while considering her case for financial upgradation under MACP scheme as was done in the case of Suresh Babu(supra) decided by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. We have gone through the judgment in the said case. In Suresh Babu(supra) , the applicant was denied promotion on account of his ACR grading in the year 2005 which was not communicated to him. It is worth noting here that Suresh Babu(supra), as well as OA no. 1875/2015 of this Bench and OA no. 170/727/2016 decided by the Coordinate Bench in Bengaluru relate to cases of promotion and not grant of financial upgradation under MACP. Suresh Babu(supra) and OA no. 170/727/2016 of Bengaluru Bench of CAT also deal with Performance Reports of the applicant for periods prior to Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar and also DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009. We, therefore, do not consider these judgments to be directly relatable to the case in hand.