Back
AMIT BANSAL, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Rajesh Pratap Kanchan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 20th February, 2020 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of dismissal of O.A. No. 494/2020 preferred by the petitioner, working as Assistant Director in Ministry of Commerce and Industry, impugning his annual confidential report (ACR) for the period 01st October, 2005 to 31st March, 2006.
2. This petition came up first before this Court on 11th January, 2021, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued without expressing any prima facie view also as to what was the perversity in the order of CAT.
3. Today, none appears for the respondents.
4. The counsel for the petitioner states that counter-affidavit directed to be filed has not been filed.
5. However, having perused the impugned order of CAT and being of the prima facie view that there is no perversity in the impugned order of CAT and there is no need for a counter affidavit, we have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
6. The petitioner filed the O.A. aforesaid, pleading that (i) a charge sheet dated 13th February, 2007 was issued to the petitioner, of having remained absent from duty with effect from
The assessment of an employee's performance should be based on periodic evaluations and should not be unduly influenced by past assessments or disciplinary proceedings.
The court upheld the administrative body's discretion in performance assessment despite absence of direct observation, emphasizing the need for timely self-appraisal submissions.
The finality of the order passed by the Competent Authority in the context of APARs.
The court cannot re-assess the evidence for the grading and found no legal grounds to review the assessment. No adverse remarks were made against the petitioner, and the grading was based on his perf....
In evaluating administrative assessments, courts will not interfere unless demonstrated that the processes used lack basis or proper application of mind.
The court holds that downgrading public servants' ACRs requires substantial reasoning and fairness; previous good performance must not be overshadowed by isolated adverse remarks without justificatio....
Every entry in an employee's ACR, including adverse remarks, must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period, ensuring the right to contest such entries, as established by the Assam S....
Indian Army - Promotion- scope of interference with the gradings given in the CRs of an officer is very limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Assessments in Confidential Reports are valid unless explicitly stated otherwise, and judicial interference under Article 226 is limited.
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
