Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Rajesh Pratap Kanchan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cat order under article 226. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of petitioner's adverse remarks and representations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. challenges to integrity grading by reporting authorities. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. assessment parameters of acr beyond integrity observations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judicial limits in evaluating performance assessments. (Para 13) |
| 6. historical performance not determining current assessments. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. court dismisses petition for lack of grounds. (Para 16) |
ORDER
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
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 resp
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 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 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....
Assessments in Confidential Reports are valid unless explicitly stated otherwise, and judicial interference under Article 226 is limited.
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....
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....
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
