Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 778
2025:DHC:1314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, JJ.
Aabi Binju – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1164 of 2020
Decided On : 28-02-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : K.L. Manhas
For the Respondents : Shoumendu Mukherji, Megha Sharma, Arya Jha, Aniruddha Ghosh
Central Admini
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Review of ACRs - The reviewing officer's power to downgrade reports must be exercised judiciously and with proper reasoning; failure to do so renders it arbitrary. (Paras 12, 25 and 26)
(C) Employment Law - Public Servants’ ACRs - Consistency in assessment over years is vital; previous good performance cannot be characteristically overshadowed by isolated adverse grades without substantial justification. (Paras 9 and 10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging adverse acrs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of acrs and contested years outline specific grievances. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. petitioner’s representations against acrs were rejected. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. tribunal’s decisions on acrs and references to prior judgments. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. issues involves the necessity of warning before acr grading. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. grading discrepancies highlighted in acrs for evaluation years. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. judicial examination of acr grading validity and necessity of reasons. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. standards for assessing acrs and procedural requirements outlined. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. judicial precedent concerning integrity and objectivity in acrs. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 10. final conclusions recognize acr gradings compatible with law. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 12 September 2019, passed by the strative Tribunal [“the Tribunal” hereinafter] in seven Original Applications [OAs 4061/2014, 4518/2014, 4519/2014, 4532/2014, 4533/2014, 4623/2014 and 4625/2014] instituted by the petitioner. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 12 September 2019, has dismissed all the OAs. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant in the OAs, Aabi Binju, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the Central Soil & Mineral Research Station [“CSMRS” hereinafter] an office under the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation [“MOWR” hereinafter]. The case relates to the Annual Confidential Reports [“ACRs” hereinafter] of the petitioner for the years, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The copies of the aforesaid ACRs were provided to the petitioner on 27 May 2009. The petitioner represented against the said ACRs on 9 June 2009, 20 July 2009 and 8 August 2011. The representations were rejected on 5 August 2011 and 29 December 2011.
3. The petitioner instituted the aforenoted seven OAs challenging his ACRs for the years mentioned, as well as the rejection of his representations thereagainst by communications dated 5 August 2011, 29 December 2011 as well as two subsequent communications dated 28 December 2012 and 25 February 2014. He sought, in the OAs, quashing of the adverse remarks entered in his aforenoted ACRs.
4. The OAs were first dismissed by the Tribunal by judgment dated 28 March 2019. The petitioner challenged the said decision before Court by way of WP (C) 4896/2019. By judgment dated 8 May 2019, this Court set aside the order dated 28 March 2019 of the Tribunal and remanded the OAs to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. The impugned judgment dated 12 September 2019 is the outcome of the said de novo consideration. The Tribunal has once again dismissed all the OAs.
5. Aabi Binju is, therefore, once again before us.
The ACRs, tabulated
6. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the content of ACRs for the years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 in their entirety [Skipping a few inconsequential entries] tabulated, as Annexure A to this judgment. The petitioner addressed representations, against the aforesaid OAs, on 9 June 2009, 20 July 2009, 8 August 2011, 3 December 2012 and 16 October 2013.
The present lis
7. The orders on the petitioner’s representations, which form subject matter of challenge in the OAs filed by him, were passed on 5 August 2011, 29 December 2011, 28 December 2012 and 25 February 2014.
8. Vide his representation dated 9 June 2009, the petitioner assailed the remarks contained in his ACRs for the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.
9. For the said year, as is apparent from the table annexed as Annexure A to this judgment, the reporting officer had graded the petitioner “Very Good”, but the grading had been downgraded to “Good”, by the reviewing officer. Th
