In evaluating administrative assessments, courts will not interfere unless demonstrated that the processes used lack basis or proper application of mind.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present Writ Petition impugns the order dated 18ththth November, 2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. Vide the said impugned order, the CAT has dismissed OA No.3337/2017 filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had sought setting aside of order/memo dated 26 February, 2017 passed by the respondents; the expunging of adverse remarks/comments given in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period of 2012-13 and setting aside the letter dated 14 July, 2017 by which the respondents have rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the point of maintainability.

2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are set out hereinafter.

3. The petitioner joined the Department of Telecommunications as Assistant Divisional Engineer Telephones in the year 1999. Thereafter, he became an employee of BSNL, respondent no.1. He was promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer Telephones in the year 2003; Director in the year 2008 and Deputy General Manager (DGM) in the year 2011. The petitioner was posted as DGM, Tezpur on 28.06.2011.

4. On 19th July, 2013, the petitioner was communicated the APAR for the period of 1st April, 2012 to 2nd February, 2013 by the respondents which was below the benchmark. The petitioner sent representations dated 26.09.2013 and 31.05.2016 to the respondents for upgrading of the overall grading and expunging the remarks/comments in APAR for the period of 1st April, 2012 to 2nd February, 2013, which was below the benchmark. The said representations of the petitioner were rejected by the respondents on 28th February, 2014 and 26th February, 2017 respectively. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Competent Authority; however, the same was rejected on the ground of maintainability. Aggrieved by the order/memo dated 26th February, 2017, the petitioner filed the OA before the CAT, from which the present petition arises.

5. The said OA before the CAT was contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner was that for the period in question i.e. 1st April, 2012 to 2nd February, 2013, the Reporting Authority gave 01 out of 10 numerical grading to the petitioner and in the pen picture of the petitioner, serious dissatisfaction was expressed about his performance. Reviewing Authority agreed with the said assessment made by the Reporting Authority. The petitioner claims that the said assessment was without any basis and Reviewing Authority has accepted the remarks of the Reporting Authority in a mechanical manner without any application of mind.

6. The CAT, in the impugned order, observed that (i) the method of preparation of APARs is almost foolproof and the likes and dislikes of any superior officer are not permitted to be reflected in the APAR, as there are many safeguards provided in the system; (ii) further, when a representation is made by an employee to the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority satisfies himself by calling for remarks of the Reporting and the Reviewing Officers for the concerned period and it is only when he finds a serious error or when the employee concerned demonstrates that the assessment was not proper, that the Competent Authority can interfere; (iii) the petitioner did not even plead that there was any personal animosity on the part of the Reporting/Reviewing Officer against him; (iv) there is a finality to the order passed by the Competent Authority. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner before the CAT viz. Union Public Service Commission Vs. Hiranyalal Dev and Ors., (1988) 2 SCC 242 was distinguished on the ground that in that c