Back
NAVIN CHAWLA, SHALINDER KAUR
Achkan Arvind Priyadarshi Meena – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Navin Chawla, J.)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the adverse remarks made by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer in the petitioner’s Annual Performance Appraisal Report (in short, ‘APAR’) for the year 2014-2015 as well as the Order dated 02.05.2019, whereby his representation against the said APAR was rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Border Security Force (in short, ‘BSF’) as an Assistant Commandant on 03.10.2011. After completion of his training, he was posted to the 142 Bn, Assam, and thereafter he was posted to 164 Bn, Dera Baba Nanak (DBN), Punjab, on 26.12.2013. He was granted the benefit of the Senior Time Scale (in short, ‘STS’) with effect from 03.10.2015, along with his batchmates. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the final list of the officers who had been granted the STS benefit, and upon noticing the same, the Commandant, 164 BN, issued Signal dated 09.01.2017 to FTR HQ PB/FHQ (PERS DTE) seeking a clarification in this regard.
3. Instead of rectifying the exclusion of the petitioner, the respondents, vide Signal dated 02.08.2018, issued a recovery notice
The failure to properly communicate adverse remarks in an APAR invalidates their use against an officer's career progression.
The court affirmed that APAR grades depend solely on current performance, and that prior commendations do not alter evaluations for subsequent periods.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fairness and objectivity in preparing APARs, and the court's authority to expunge unjustified adverse remarks and direct a revi....
Judicial review of performance assessments is limited, and courts do not substitute administrative judgments unless proven irrational.
Non-communication of adverse performance assessment entries denies fundamental right to a fair opportunity in promotion, violating principles of natural justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse remarks to be specific, communicated within a reasonable period, and based on fair assessment without prejudice. The....
The court emphasized the importance of allowing public servants to improve their performance based on ACR entries and highlighted the limited role of the court in reviewing ACR entries.
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....
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
