Superior Authority Not Bound To Record Or Communicate Detailed Reasons When Rejecting Representation Against Adverse Remarks: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The employee joined the BSF as a Group A officer in November 2012. Before that he served in the CISF. He completed training with consistently strong appraisals and commendations. Later he was posted as Company Commander in the 73 Battalion at the Indo-Bangladesh border and in Kashmir. His Commandant described him as an Outstanding officer for the 2014-15 assessment year. He was awarded high grades and his leadership during the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections was also noted. However, the Reviewing Authority, a DIG reduced the ratings to Very Good. He remarked that the officer had been over assessed and was lacking in leadership qualities, command and control.

The officer submitted a representation contending that the DIG neither interacted with him nor visited his area of deployment during the period. Hence, the downgraded appraisal was without any reasons. The representation was rejected in December 2016. Further, a plea was rejected in January 2018.

Aggrieved by the same, the officer filed a petition seeking removal of the adverse comments from his record.

It was argued by the Officer that the orders dated 09.12.2016 and 03.01.2018 denied increments, and therefore could not have been passed without a proper explanation. It was further contended that the Reviewing Authority's downgraded assessment was without factual basis. That the DIG never interacted with the officer during the appraisal period, never visited his deployment at the Indo-Bangladesh border, and played no supervisory role when he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir. It was submitted that the Reviewing Authority had no opportunity to observe the officer's performance, yet imposed adverse comments. The Officer was also never given a chance to rectify the deficiencies before the remarks were given.

On the other hand it was contended by the Union of India that the officer had already been promoted along with his batch. The UOI pointed out that the Officer had not made the Reviewing Authority party to the petition. It was further argued that the rejection of the representations was made after consideration of the record by the Special Director General, BSF. It was argued that the scope of Writ Courts in entertaining a writ petition against an Order of rejecting representation regarding adverse remarks in the assessment report is extremely narrow and Writ Courts should not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision arrived at by the Reviewing Officer

Findings of the Court

It was found by the court that the petitioner's representation had been duly considered. It was further observed by the Court that performance appraisals are based on the subjective satisfaction of the reporting officer. A writ court cannot reassess the evaluations or replace the judgment of the authorities who directly supervise the officer.

The judgment of State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra was relied upon wherein it was held that confidential reports must be fair and factual. Further the adverse entries are intended to guide improvement.

It was noted by the Court that no rule was shown requiring the Approving Authority to provide detailed reasons while rejecting a representation against adverse appraisal remarks. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, it was held that a superior authority may reject a servant's representation against adverse entries without recording reasons, as long as the decision is fair and just. Further the absence of reasons does not make the order illegal.

It was observed by the Court that the officer was communicated the remarks in time and provided adequate opportunity to respond. His representations were examined before being rejected. Finding no legal infirmity in the orders passed, the Court declined to interfere. Hence, the writ petition filed by the Officer was dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Suresh Sankhla vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1417

Case No. : W.P.(C) 5600/2018

Counsel for the Petitioner : Tamali Wad, Sr. Advocate with Varyam Pandey and Palak Garg, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent : Akshay Amritanshu, Senior Panel Counsel with Drishti Saraf, Drishti Rawal, Sarthak Srivastava and Mayur Goyal, Advocates.