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.

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 27th March, 2006 to 14th May, 2016 and of having disobeyed the instructions of Director (Supplies), ST Directorate/Deputy Director-General (Supplies) and of the petitioner having submitted files unnecessarily on trivial matters, which could have been sorted out at his level and of the petitioner lacking application of mind, being indifferent to work and defiant and having not obeyed instructions; (ii) the petitioner, vide Memorandum dated 26th June, 2008, was for the first time informed of the adverse remarks i.e. "He is disobedient, defiant and refuses to do the work to an extent. Already the matter pertaining to ST case was reported to senior officers. Administration is ceased of the matter including absenting from duties unauthorisedly" in his ACR for the period 01st October, 2005 to 31st March, 2006; (iii) the petitioner made a representation dated 21st July, 2008, seeking that the adverse remarks should not be entered in the ACR; (iv) vide Memorandum dated 9th September, 2009, the representation of the petitioner was rejected; (v) the adverse remarks in the impugned ACR were relatable to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner; (vi) that by an order dated 22nd August, 2016, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges; (vii) ACR of the petitioner, for the period from 1st October, 2005 to 31st March, 2006, was communicated to the petitioner on 20th April, 2018, when the petitioner learnt that he had been graded 'average' including qua his integrity; and, (viii) after being so exonerated, the petitioner, on 3rd May, 2018 sought review of his aforesaid ACR but which, vide memorandum dated 18th February, 2019, was only partly allowed, by modifying the entry against the column of integrity only.

7. Cat, vide the impugned order, has dismissed the O.A. aforesaid preferred by the petitioner, reasoning (i) that the petitioner did not submit his self-appraisal for the subject period from 1st October, 2005 to 31st March, 2006; (ii) that left with no alternative, the Reporting and the Reviewing Authorities proceeded to make their own assessment, recording that the petitioner, in spite of being reminded twice, had not furnished his self-appraisal and that the same reflected the attitude and behaviour of the petitioner; (iii) that against the column pertaining to integrity in the ACR, the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities had filled in 'average'; (iv) however on representation of the petitioner, the said entry was changed to "not watched the officer's work for sufficient time to form a definite judgment but nothing adverse has been reported to me about the officer". (v) that with the aforesaid, the grievance of the petitioner with respect to his integrity having been marked as 'average', stood satisfied; (vi) that the plea of the petitioner was that