Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SHALINDER KAUR, J

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Annual Performance Assessment Report („APAR‟) for the period between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016, wherein a below benchmark grading of „3.1‟ has been awarded to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner also assails the Order dated 11.06.2020 passed by Special Director General, Border Security Force („BSF‟), Eastern Command, vide which the Order dated 22.05.2019, passed by Inspector General („IG‟), North Bengal Frontier, BSF, was set aside solely on the ground that no second representation is permissible against the adverse remarks in an APAR.

5. The claim of the petitioner is that he was undergoing treatment at a Government Hospital in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, from 27.02.2016 to 10.06.2016. His Over Stay Leave („OSL‟) had been regularized vide the Order dated 04.01.2019, by the office of the Commandant. However, the petitioner received a below benchmark grading of „3.1‟ with the remark „Average‟ for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016, by the Reporting Authority, for which the petitioner also received communication of adverse/advisory remarks vide the Letter dated 04.09.2016. The Reviewing and the Accepting Authority concurred with the reporting of the Reporting Authority and endorsed the grading with a remark, "I Agree", without any further explanation.

20. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that even subsequent to the petitioner joining his duties after his OSL, the petitioner was not showing keen interest in discharging his duties and thus, was accordingly graded in his APAR.

21. The learned counsel for the respondent, while drawing our attention to Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) (Pers-II Desk), UO No. 1-45020/7/2014/Pers-II dated 02.09.2014, clarified that DOP&T's OM dated 14.05.2009, does not provide for a further representation or appeal once the Competent Authority has decided on the officer's initial representation or appeal against adverse remarks or below benchmark grading in the APAR. Since the petitioner‟s first representation was rejected, the petitioner was not entitled to make a second representation.

43. In light of the above, in the impugned APAR, the petitioner has been graded as „Average‟ with a score of 3.1, however, no justifiable reason or an incident has been mentioned for recording the adverse remarks and below benchmark grading, therefore, the adverse remarks/grading in the impugned APAR deserves to be set aside.

44. In view of the foregoing analysis, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the Impugned APAR for the period between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 is quashed. It is further made clear that the respondents shall not consider the said Impugned APAR for any kind of assessment related to the petitioner in the future.