Courts Can't Interfere In Assessment By Reporting Officer In Absence Of Bias Or Prejudice Against Employee:Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta partly allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld the gradings given to the Petitioner in the ACR's by Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The Bench observed that while the Courts are required to consider and give weightage to the reports and gradings given by Officers, it is also necessary to consider whether such remarks or gradings were assigned without any bias or prejudice. Background The Petitioner, an employee of the Central Soil & Mineral Research Station filed seven Original Applications challenging his 'Annual Confidential Reports' for seven years before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Initially, the Petitioner had made representations against these ACRs, however, the same were rejected on 5 August 2011 and 29 December 2011. The Petitioner also challenged the rejection of his representation along with two subsequent communications dated 28 December 2012 and 25 February 2014 before the Tribunal. As per the Petitioner, adverse remarks were passed against him in the ACRs and the same deserved to be quashed. The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner made representations challenging the downgrading of his grades. As per the Petitioner, initially the remarks were “Very Good” and before downgrading the same to 'good', the Petitioner was not asked to take any corrective measures to improve his performance. Pertinently, the remarks, 'very good' were a requirement for further promotion. The Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision in State of UP v Yamuna Shankar Mishra in this regard. Furthermore, it was stated that the downgrading of the Petitioner's remarks was legally not sustainable because the reviewing officer was specialized in Civil Engineering while as the Petitioner was an Electronics Engineer. On the other hand, the Order rejecting the Petitioner's representations stated that the reviewing officer was not necessarily required to belong to the same field and was competent enough to perform the duties he was assigned. It was further stated that the Petitioner had not been able to substantiate his claims with concrete evidence. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioner challenged the ACRs for each year, however, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications on 28 March 2019 stating that it was not necessary to furnish a warning or reprimand the Petitioner before grading him as 'Average' as per the Office Memorandum dated 05.06.1981. The Petitioner Approached the High Court challenging this decision. The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and passed a judgment directing the Tribunal to consider the Applications afresh. The Court criticized the Tribunal's findings to an extent of having restricted its examination to a single issue and hence remanded the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of the issue on merits. On 12 September 2019, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications. Hence, the Petitioner approached the High Court again. Findings of the Court The Court considered two main issues to arrive at a conclusion. Whether the gradings and the observations contained in the ACRs, as entered by the Reporting and reviewing officers, were sustainable in law.Whether communication of the ACRs was necessary, before they were taken into consideration by any Committee while assessing the petitioner's case for promotion. The Court relied on several decisions including Vijay Kumar v State of Maharashtra, S Ramachandra Raju v State of Orissa, M.A. Rajasekhar v State of Karnataka, State Bank of India v Kashinath Kher, Sukhdeo v Commissioner Amaravati Division, State of U.P. v Yamuna Shanker Misra and many others and held that although the courts had to give weightage to the views of officers, certain guidelines and parameters were to be followed by the officers while writing the reports. It was observed that if there are starkly inconsistent remarks, it could be inferred that such remarks were deliberately made due to bias against the officer. Moreover, the Bench noted that absolute objectivity and complete absence of bias or prejudice are vital elements and were to be considered by the reporting officer as well as reviewing officers. Moreover, before passing adverse remarks on the basis of information which is not part of the record, the reporting officer should share the information, with the officer, confront him with it, so that he is given an opportunity to improve, the Court observed. It was stated that the reviewing officer cannot downgrade the overall grading granted by the reporting officer, without reasons. Considering these principles, the Court perused the record concerning the grades assigned to the Petitioner in his ACRs in each year and observed that there was no reason for the Court ...

Courts Can't Interfere In Assessment By Reporting Officer In Absence Of Bias Or Prejudice Against Employee:Delhi High Court

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags