The duty of the reviewing officer to provide detailed reasons for downgrading ACR and communicate them to the employee, fair and objective assessment, communication of ACR ratings, and compliance with DPE guidelines.

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby directing the respondents to set aside and quash the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the respondents vide which the representation of the petitioner has been arbitrarily dismissed. He further seeks direction thereby to set aside and quash the downgraded ACR rating of “4” given by the respondents to the petitioner for the year 2014-15. Consequently, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from the salary grade “D” to the salary grade “E” with retrospective effect, upon ignoring the said illegal rating “4” given to the petitioner for the year 2014-15 and also to grant consequential benefits thereto.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a qualified engineer who joined the respondent Hindustan Limited Petroleum Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “HPCL”) on 28.10.1991 as Officer Trainee (Management Employee) in the entry level salary grade “A” and has completed 27 years of service. Presently he is posted as Senior Manager Retail Upgradation in HPCL J&K Retail R.O. at Jammu. Till today the petitioner has served at 12 locations across the country and has played pivotal role in the construction of 7 depots/terminals and more than 250 retail outlets in the states of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, etc., including outlets like Tapri and Tunnuhatti in the most difficult terrains. Moreover, the petitioner has also implemented the new RVI/VRS and automation in Delhi, when these concepts were just started.

3. Further the case of the petitioner is that he was promoted from Salary Grade “A” to “B”, from “B” to “C” and then to the present Salary Grade “D” on 25.06.2007. The promotions are governed by the “HPCL Promotion Policy-Management Employees” (updated as of March, 2009) which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P1. Vide office memorandum (OM) dated 14.05.2009, the Government of India categorically stated that the full APAR of an employee including the remarks of the reviewing/accepting authority are required to be communicated to him within a reasonable period. A copy of the same is marked as Annexure P2. The “Performance Appraisal System” of the respondents is governed by the Rule 8.1 of its personnel manual which is marked as Annexure P3. Certain portions of the aforesaid “HPCL Promotion Policy-Management Employees” have been amended by the respondents vide Minutes of Meeting dated 11.12.2014, duly communicated vide letter dated 09.01.2015 issued by the Company Secretary's Desk. A copy of the same is marked as Annexure P4. However, in FY 2014-15, the petitioner submitted his goals and targets through Online Performance management System. The said goals and targets were required to be approved by the then reporting officer i.e. respondent no.4 and then in turn required to be approved by the reviewing officer of the petitioner i.e. respondent no.3 herein. On 06.09.2014, the goals and targets submitted by the petitioner were returned back to him by his reporting officer with certain remarks. Accordingly, the petitioner modified his goals and targets as per those comments and then resubmitted the same on 18.09.2014. However, on 20.10.2014 the said modified goals and targets were returned back to him by his reviewing officer with certain more comments. Then the petitioner resubmitted his modified goals and targets on 04.12.2014 which were again returned by the reviewing officer on 31.12.2014 with certain comments. The petitioner once again resubmitted the same on 29.01.2015 which were approved by the reporting officer on 20.03.2015 and by reviewing officer on 15.04.2015.

4. Further the case of the petitioner is that as per the Annual Performance Management Report of the petitioner for the year 2014-15, he was remarked as “Below Target” against 3 out