Judicial review of performance assessments is limited, and courts do not substitute administrative judgments unless proven irrational.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

CM 26119/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 8435/2021

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his Annual Performance Assessment Report (hereinafter referred to as the `APAR') for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 to the extent whereby the petitioner has been given adverse remarks by the Reporting Officer/Initiating Officer, respondent no. 4 in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner further challenges his Part Performance Assessment Report (hereinafter referred to as the `PPAR') for the period 01.04.2013 to 11.10.2013 to the extent that the petitioner was numerically graded low. The petitioner also challenges the Orders dated 31.05.2016 and 18.11.2016 rejecting his representations against PPAR as also non-grant of MACP benefit. As a consequence, the petitioner prays for the grant of a second MACP benefit as also promotion to the rank of Second-in-Command with all consequential benefits.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that while being posted as an Adjutant at 68 Bn, Samba, Jammu & Kashmir, he initiated the case of removal of one Constable Gurnam Singh who had been convicted of a criminal offence in the year 1997 and was performing duties as a `Granthi' at the Unit. This was not to the liking of respondent no. 4, who was the then Commandant of the battalion. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that because of this ill-will, the respondent no. 4, with a mala fide intent, downgraded the petitioner and made adverse observations in his APAR/PPAR for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012; 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013; and 01.04.2013 to 11.10.2013, on which date the petitioner was moved out to 29 Bn, Salbagan, Tripura. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that but for this period, the petitioner has always been graded as `outstanding' or `very good'.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, while the respondent no. 4 gave an overall grading of 3.8 out of 10 to the petitioner, the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Officer gave an overall grading of 6.93 out of 10 to the petitioner. It was only in a status report dated 20.04.18 filed by the respondent no. 2 before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (hereinafter referred to as the `learned NCSC'), in a complaint filed by the petitioner, that the petitioner was informed that the adverse remarks against him have been wrongly communicated as neither the Reviewing Officer nor the Accepting Officer had agreed with the remarks of the Initiating Officer.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, the respondent no. 4 again, with a mala fide intent, gave overall grading of 3.82 out of 10 to the petitioner. The Reviewing Authority, however, graded the petitioner at 7.12 out of 10 and the Accepting Officer again agreed with the Reviewing Officer. The petitioner avers that though the above facts were similar to his APAR from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, the representation of the petitioner against the same was rejected.

6. Insofar as the PPAR for the period 01.04.2013 to 11.10.2013 is concerned, the petitioner was again given an overall grading of only 3.67 out of 10 by the respondent no. 4, whereas the Reviewing Authority gave an overall grading of 6.49 out of 10 and the Accepting Authority gave an overall grading of 5.0 out of 10. The learned counsel