Back
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Eapen P. V. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral). - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 5th December, 2019 challenging the adverse remarks in his Part Performance Appraisal Report [PPAR] that resulted in below benchmark grading for the period between 1st April, 2015 and 23rdSeptember, 2015.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the petitioner was communicated the below par PPAR on 23 rd November, 2019 vide letter dated 11th November, 2019 and was called upon to represent against the PPAR by 23rd November, 2019. He states that the Petitioner first represented against the PPAR vide his Representation dated 5thDecember, 2019. He further states that despite lapse of almost two years since his Representation and multiple reminders, the Petitioner is yet to receive a final decision on the Representation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that delay in deciding the Petitioner’s Representation is violative of the BSF’s guidelines contained in para 4.18 of the BSF APAR Procedure and Instructions 2012. He states that a DPC is to be convened by th
Timely decision on representations challenging adverse remarks in performance appraisal reports, considering their impact on promotion prospects.
The delay in deciding an employee's representation against adverse performance appraisal remarks infringes on principles of natural justice and contradicts established procedural guidelines.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the principle of natural justice and audi alteram partem in recording adverse remarks in the APAR, emphasizing the importance o....
A delayed challenge to a Part Performance Appraisal Report (PPAR) is disallowed to maintain administrative integrity and protect the interests of other personnel.
Non-communication of below benchmark grading in ACR/APAR is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The rejection of representation against below benchmark grading must be....
The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for downgrading assessments and considered uncontroverted serious allegations in reaching its decision.
Promotion eligibility criteria must be upheld, and adverse remarks in APAR must be communicated timely to comply with natural justice principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
