'APAR Can't Be Interfered With If It Complies With Guidelines And Is Not Actuated By Malice', Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Writ Petition seeking to upgrade the Petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) based on being graded as 'very good' and 'outstanding' in the previous years. The Court further held that the APAR could not be interfered with as the Reporting Officer had written the same considering the attitude and dealings of the Petitioner and no guidelines or rules were violated in doing so. Background The Petitioner was posted in the Border Security Force and he joined the services on 02.07.1993 through direct entry. According to the Petitioner, he had an unblemished record of 29 years of service and was to be promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector General after being granted promotion to the rank of Commandant on 07.10.2016. Although he was graded 'Outstanding' and 'very good' regularly for the years 2016 to 2021, he was graded as 'good' in his APAR for 2021-22 and his numerical grading was also only 5. He alleged that the same was wrongly done and that the Reporting Officer had also written adverse remarks against the Petitioner in the APAR. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner challenged the APAR in the Court. Contentions of the Petitioner: The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the purpose of the APAR writing was to effectively carry out career planning and human resource development with an intention to work towards the best interests of the employees and the Force. It was submitted that in case of the Petitioner, the APAR indicated vengeance against the Petitioner and that the APAR was written with preconceived ideas about the Petitioner. In relation to the adverse remarks against the Petitioner, the Counsel stated that the Reporting Officer had laid undue emphasis on the advice issued to the Petitioner for allegedly being dressed in civilian clothes during the final rehearsals of the Annual Inspection. It was stated that while the annual inspection was to be done on 31.01.2022 and 01.02.2022, the officers including the Petitioner were told on 21.01.2022 during the informal round of Administration Block that the final pre-inspection rehearsal would take place on 30.01.2022. In addition, the officers were instructed to be present in civil dress for the final pre-inspection rehearsal. Later, another instruction was issued, asking the officers to be present in uniform, however, the Petitioner allegedly did not obtain this piece of information leading in him being dressed in civilian clothes on 30.01.2022. It was submitted that due to time constraint, the Petitioner ran to the Quarter Guard in civil dress which was followed by an advice issued to him on 31.01.2022. Stating that the Petitioner was not even given an opportunity to explain his position, the Counsel asserted that the Reporting Officer displayed a prejudicial conduct towards the Petitioner. The Counsel also mentioned another incident which allegedly led in the adverse remarks in the APAR against the Petitioner. It was stated that a file recording the Board proceedings remained pending with the petitioner for 13 days, however, it was incorrectly said to have been retained by him for 32 days. The Counsel argued that it was wrong to have written adverse remarks on the basis of such incorrect facts. Moreover, one of the grounds for making the adverse remarks was him availing leave six times during the year. The Counsel argued that it could not be treated as a genuine ground since the leave was duly sanctioned. Contentions of the Respondent: The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Officers who wrote the APAR were well aware of the Petitioner's work and dealings and therefore, their findings could not be interfered with by the Court as long as there was no malice or mistake in such reports. In addition to this, the Counsel submitted that the APAR could not be interfered with unless it was found that the same was contrary to the guidelines or if there was malice towards the Petitioner. In relation to being present in civilian clothes, the Counsel stated that the Petitioner could not state ignorance of an instruction especially being the Commandant. It was submitted that the Petitioner having appeared in a civilian dress had breached not only a lawful order but also the discipline of the Force. Further emphasizing the casual attitude of the Petitioner, the Counsel argued that the Petitioner should have returned the file before taking a leave as an Advisory Letter regarding the lapse was also issued to him in relation to the file. Additionally, it was stated that the Reporting Officer was well in know of the Petitioner's dealings and he had observed the Petitioner closely. Therefore, the gradings and adverse remarks could not be changed as was also confirmed by the Reviewing Officer. The Counsel also put forth a...

'APAR Can't Be Interfered With If It Complies With Guidelines And Is Not Actuated By Malice', Delhi High Court

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags