The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair and objective assessment in the recording of Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APAR), the need for written advisories before making adverse remarks, and the objective of APAR to improve performance.

JUDGMENT :

ASHA MENON, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the recording of his Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) by the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 4, with the following prayers:

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of the APAR for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 to the extent whereby adverse remarks have been given to the petitioner and of the order dated 08.05.2020 whereby the representation dated 03.10.2019 of the petitioner with respect to the expunction of untenable remarks and upgradation of grading in the APAR for the period 2018-2019 was rejected.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade the grading and to expunge the adverse remarks for the relevant period i.e. 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 and to grant all consequential benefits in light of the expunged remarks and revised grading.

(c) Pass any such orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner joined the CRPF in December, 1987 as an Assistant Commandant. The petitioner claims that due to his hard work, he had always received very good performance evaluations and had also received regular promotions in due course. In 2009, he was promoted to the rank of DIG. He has an unblemished service of more than 31 years in the Force. He had been appreciated by not only the higher authorities, including the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, but also by the President of India for his meritorious work. Since the assessment year 2010-2011 he has been graded “Outstanding.”

3. On 16th January, 2017, the petitioner was posted to West Bengal Sector as DIG and served as the DIG (Adm) of the sector for nearly 6 months after which he took charge as DIG (Ops/Int & Trg) for the remaining period of the year 2017-2018. During this period, he was the 2nd senior most officer in the sector after the Inspector General and according to him, had performed his duties most creditably. However, when in terms of the guidelines of the DoPT contained in OM dated 14th May, 2009, the petitioner received his APAR for the period 1st April, 2017 to 31st March, 2018 on 2nd April, 2019, he realised that he had been callously awarded 7.1 marks out of 10 by the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities in all attributes/traits. The petitioner had been graded as “Very Good” though certain adverse remarks like, lack of initiative, weak interpersonal relations, etc. were recorded by the Reporting Officer/respondent No. 4, which were incompatible with the marks and grading. No prior warning/advisory had been issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 before these adverse remarks were recorded by him in the petitioner’s APAR. Thus, this improper recording of the APAR for the year 2017-2018 disclosed the bias that the respondent No. 4 had against the petitioner. The Accepting Authority however, graded him “Outstanding.” The petitioner, nevertheless filed an appeal for expunction of the adverse remarks and which he submitted on 4th April, 2019 to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and which was accepted vide order issued on 7th January, 2020.

4. The petitioner states that the respondent No. 4 and he had a very strained relationship. It is further averred in the petition that on 28th June, 2019, the respondent No. 4 sent a complaint against the petitioner accusing him of abusing and physically assaulting his staff and the very next day, i.e. on 29th June, 2019, with the same mindset, wrote his APAR for the period 1st April, 2018 to 31st March, 2019, grading him 5.8 marks out of 10, i.e. “Good.” Certain adverse remarks were also recorded by him. Unfortunately, the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Authority also affirmed these observations. Once again, no advisory/warning had been issued to the petitioner before the reco