Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997
24. We may begin by noting that as per the settled legal position, while
assessing the performance of a subordinate, the superior must be careful to
evaluate the information gathered about him and due diligence must be exercised
in writing an APAR. The „Remarks‟ endorsed in the APAR are crucial to
evaluate/assess and formulate an opinion on the performance of a subordinate and,
therefore, the recording of remarks require fair and unbiased reporting, as it may
otherwise jeopardize his career advancement. Reference may be made to State of
U.P. vs. Yamuna Shanker Mishra (Supra) wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
emphasized on the purpose of recording confidential reports by observing as
under:-
Shri Tarsem Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 1 October, 2014
In the teeth of these instructions, and various guidelines laid down
by the DoPT from time to time, it becomes abundantly clear that neither
the Reporting Officer nor the Reviewing Officer, indeed not even the
Accepting Officer, 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 assessed. The Reviewing
Officer too cannot abdicate his responsibility by just putting a stamp of
approval on the remarks given by the Reporting Officer.
Simultaneously, he cannot record his disagreement with the report of
the Reporting Officer without spelling out the reasons for his
disagreement. The position of the Accepting Officer is no different"
Sanjeev Dhundia vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 December, 2022
20. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner‟s grading as "Good" in the
APAR is not only on the basis of the „secret note‟ but also based on consideration
of his performance qua other parameters as well. Specifically, around 10
advisories/ explanation letters were issued to the petitioner as he ignored the
orders of his superior/ respondent no.3 and did not improve upon his work and
therefore, the decision in Sanjeev Dhundia (supra), wherein no advisory was
issued to the employee before downgrading his APAR, is not applicable. Moreso,
instead of tendering explanation to the advisories, the petitioner indulged in
submitting representations. He therefore, contends that the assessment of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13646/2022 Page 7 of 17
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:02.08.2024
17:51:12
petitioner was made equitably & fairly and prays that the writ petition be
dismissed.
State Bank Of India Etc vs Kashinath Kher & Ors. Etc on 8 February, 1996
25. Again, in State Bank of India vs. Kashinath Kher, (1996) 8 SCC 762, the
importance of an APAR in career progression and promotion was considered by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and it was held as under :-
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
In this regard, we may also refer to the observations made by Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in A. K. Kraipak and Others vs. Union of India and Others,
(1969) 2 SCC 262:-
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:-
Manudev Dahiya vs Union Of India Through Dgitbp on 18 July, 2023
34. Reference may also be made to Manudev Dahiya vs. Union of India &
Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4164, wherein the Coordinate Bench held as under:-
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
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."
1