The legal framework emphasized the need for fair and objective assessment in APARs, and the importance of careful attention and due diligence in making adverse remarks.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. A Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF") has filed this petition questioning an order dated 22nd August, 2018, passed by the Appellate Authority, only partially expunging the adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report ("APAR") for the year 2016-17, but maintaining the overall grading as "good" for the period from 1st April to 11th December, 2016 ("Year 2016-17").

2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner was posted as Group Centre Bantlab, CRPF, Jammu since 29th April, 2015. The grading in his APAR for the years 2012-13 onwards was as under:

"2012-13- Very good

2013-14-Outstanding

2014-15-Very Good

2015-16-Outstanding"

3. It is stated that during the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Petitioner commanded the 179th BN at Sopore, Jammu & Kashmir, which was adjudged best operation BN of J&K zone for continuously for two years.

4. The APAR in question is for the period 1st April to 11th December, 2016. While the Reporting Officer as well as the Reviewing Officer graded the Petitioner "outstanding" and "very good" respectively, the Accepting Authority ("AA") disagreed. The remarks given by the AA in the pen picture reads thus:

"Even the reviewing officer has been generous in his assessment. The officer under question shies away from taking responsibility and lacks initiative for which he was advised to shoulder greater responsibility. Allegations were made regarding excessive drinking and corruption which is under enquiry. The officer is graded as Good."

5. The Petitioner then represented to the Directorate General ("DG"), CRPF, who was the Appellate Authority. By an order dated 22nd August, 2018, communicated to the Petitioner on 13th October, 2018, the DG expunged the following adverse remarks in the pen picture i.e. "allegations were made regarding excessive drinking and corruption which is under enquiry". However, the DG refused to expunge the other adverse entry, namely, "the officer under question shies away from taking responsibility and lacks initiative for which he was advised to shoulder greater responsibility". Further, the DG refused to interfere with the grading of "good" recorded by the AA in the APAR.

6. A further representation sent by the Petitioner on 31st December, 2017, was disposed of by the impugned order dated 13th October, 2018, and declined to interfere with the grading recorded by the AA.

7. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Court has also perused the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents.

8. While it is true that one portion of the adverse entries in the APAR for the period in question made by the AA stands expunged by the Appellate Authority, the other adverse entry namely that the officer in question shies away from taking responsibility and he lacks initiative, has not been expunged.

9. When it was inquired from the learned counsel for the Respondents whether any memo had been issued during this period to the Petitioner about his being reluctant to shoulder the responsibility, and lacking initiative, the answer was in the negative. It must be noticed here that the advisory given by the Respondents on 20th February 2017, was on account of the Petitioner not paying attention to the maintenance issues in the group centre and the non-maintenance of the parade ground and road signs. In other words, no memo as such was issued to the Petitioner about his lacking initiative or unwilling to show or being unwilling to shoulder responsibility.

10. The legal position in this regard has been explained in several decisions of this Court expunging adverse remarks. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, (1994) Supp3 SCC 424, the Supreme Court observed:

"...It is needless to emphasise that the career prospects of a subordinate officer/employee largely depends upon the work and character assessment by the reporting officer. The latter should adopt fair, objective, dispassionate and constructive commends/comments in es