The Meghalaya High Court has held that where a Reviewing Officer differs from the assessment of the Reporting Officer in an Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR), such departure must be supported by specific and cogent reasons.

The Court accordingly directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's APAR in accordance with the applicable DoPT instructions and guidelines, after taking into account the Reporting Officer's assessment and ensuring a procedurally fair reconsideration.

Justice H.S. Thangkhiew remarked that: “The respondents are directed to reconsider the said APAR strictly in accordance with the applicable DoPT instructions and APAR guidelines, after taking into consideration the assessment of the Reporting Officer and by recording specific and cogent reasons for any departure therefrom.”

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Rakesh Chopra, a Superintending Engineer (Civil) in the Border Road Organisation, challenged the adverse remarks and downgrading of his APAR for 2022-23, wherein the Reviewing Officer reduced the Reporting Officer's grading of 7.0 to 5.9. He also challenged the declaration of his 2023-24 APAR as “technically invalid”, contending that the authorities had failed to follow the applicable DoPT procedure.

The petitioner alleged that the adverse APAR entries and related administrative actions had affected his promotional prospects, particularly after he had made a whistle-blower complaint concerning alleged misappropriation by a senior BRO official.

The Court found that the 2022-23 APAR downgrade from 7.0 to 5.9 could not be sustained as the Reviewing Officer had not provided specific or cogent reasons for departing from the Reporting Officer's assessment. It held that the requirement to record reasons is an essential safeguard in the APAR process.

Regarding the 2023-24 APAR, the Court held that the petitioner's case required reconsideration under the applicable DoPT procedure and that the report could not be rejected merely as “technically invalid” without identifying the provision authorising such treatment.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the 5.9 grading and adverse remarks, directed a fresh consideration by an unconnected competent officer, and clarified that the Reporting Officer's original 7.0 grading would not automatically become final.

Case Name: Shri Rakesh Chopra v/s Union of India

Case No.: WP (C) No.427 of 2025

Date of Decision: 03.09.2026