Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)
Mritunjay Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 September, 2024 cites

State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997

10. Learned counsel pointed out that the respondent no. 4, in a devious manner, issued 5 advisories to the petitioner within a brief time period for which the impugned APAR was being recorded, with a purpose to downgrade him. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner to address and give explanations for his performance, therefore, the grading and the adverse remarks entered in his APAR are also contrary to the CRPF's Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM W.P. (C) 8908/2022 Page 4 of 23 Signing Date:24.09.2024 11:54:21 Standing Order no. 04/2015. He submitted that APARs should be based on facts and should serve a developmental purpose rather than as a fault-finding tool. Reliance for which was placed on U.P. vs Yamuna Shanker Misra:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 247 - Full Document

Sh. K.B.Sharma & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 January, 1998

33. Before we proceed to deal with the rival submissions of the parties, we may remind ourselves that to determine whether an administrative action like recording of the petitioner‟s APAR in the present case is vitiated by bias, the Court has to consider whether there was a reasonable likelihood of bias as against a mere apprehension of bias. It is not as if the aggrieved party is required to prove bias beyond reasonable doubt, but he is surely required to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of bias. Reference may also be made to be following observations of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S. K. Sharma vs. UOI and Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine 13399, as contained in paragraph no.14 of its decision. The same read as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 88 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Sanjeev Dhundia vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 December, 2022

In Sanjeev Dhundia vs. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 3533/2020 decided on 21.12.2020 by the Division Bench of this Court, similar allegations of bias while recording the adverse remarks were taken. It was found that the APARs for the previous period were good and suddenly for one year i.e., 2018-19, the grading was dropped with no apparent reason which established the bias on the part of the Reporting Officer. It was further observed that when no written advisories were issued to the petitioner to perform his performance, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner continued with unsatisfactory performance despite caution and opportunity to improve to substantiate adverse remarks given to him.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - S K Kait - Full Document

Sanjay Doval vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 November, 2019

In Sanjay Doval vs. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11500, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the petitioner was found to be having unblemished track record for over 22 years with an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM W.P. (C) 8908/2022 Page 14 of 23 Signing Date:24.09.2024 11:54:21 adverse entry being limited only to the impugned period of eight months between 01.04.2011 and 27.12.2011. The future promotion was withheld only on account of adverse remarks for the short period of DPC. The adverse remarks were found to be unjustified in the given circumstances and it was held that the adverse remarks were not justified and were expunged and the Review DPC was directed to be constituted."
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Manoj Dhyani vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2023

32. To appreciate this plea of the petitioner that the assessment in the impugned APAR was a result of the bias on the part of the respondent no.4, we may refer to the recent decision of this Court in Manoj Dhyani vs. Union of India and Others 2024 SCC Online Del 5233, wherein this Court while dealing with a situation where bias was alleged, considered the question with respect to reasonable likelihood of bias as against a mere apprehension. The relevant extracts of the decision as contained in paragraph nos.32 to 34 read as under:-
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document
1