The court affirmed that APAR grades depend solely on current performance, and that prior commendations do not alter evaluations for subsequent periods.

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the setting aside of the Adverse Remarks and below Benchmark grading endorsed in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (in short ‘APAR’) for the years 2021-22. The petitioner further prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade his APAR for the years 2021-22 with all consequential benefits.

Case of the Petitioner:

2. As a brief background, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Border Security Force (in short ‘BSF’) as Assistant Commandant (Direct Entry) on 02.07.1993. He was promoted to the rank of Commandant on 07.10.2016, and is due for promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General (in short ‘DIG’). He has an unblemished record in his entire 29 years of service.

3. The petitioner further submits that he has regularly been graded as ‘Outstanding’ and ‘Very Good’ as would be evident from the table given hereinbelow:

4. The petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that in his APAR for the period 2021-22, he has wrongly been graded ‘Good’ and has been given a numerical grading of only 5 and, the Reporting Officer has also endorsed adverse remarks in the Impugned APAR.

Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking into account the previous APAR grades of the petitioner, it is evident that the Impugned APAR has been written with a pre-determined mind and to condemn the petitioner in a vengeful manner, which completely defeats the very purpose of writing an APAR. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn reference to paragraph 1.1 of the APAR Procedure and Instructions, which states that an APAR is written with the purpose of carrying out effective careerplanning and human resource development in the best interest of the employees as well as the Force.

6. On the merits of the adverse remarks, he submits that the Reporting Officer has placed undue emphasis on the Advice dated 31.01.2022 issued to the petitioner for allegedly being dressed in civilian clothes during the final rehearsals of the Annual Inspection at Quarter Guard, 194 Bn BSF, Gandhinagar. The learned counsel submits that the Annual Inspection of SHQ BSF, Gandhinagar was to be carried out by the IG, FTR HQ BSF, Gujarat on 31.01.2022 and 01.02.2022. During the informal round of Admn. Block on 21.01.2022, the DIG SHQ BSF Gandhinagar instructed all officers present, including the petitioner, that the final pre-inspection rehearsal would be carried out of the Admn. Block, SHQ BSF Gandhinagar on 30.01.2022 at 1600 hrs. The DIG also instructed that all officers shall remain present in civil dress and all SOs and ORs shall remain in uniform for the final pre-inspection rehearsal. It was only later that the DIG changed his decision and decided that the final pre- inspection rehearsal shall be conducted out of the Quarter Guard and that all officers shall also be present in uniform. This change in decision was, however, not communicated to the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner reached the Admn. Block, on 30.01.2022, in civil dress as per the original plan, where he got to know of the changed decision of the DIG. The petitioner rushed to the Quarter Guard in civil dress only due to paucity of time, however, the Advice dated 31.01.2022 was issued to him forcoming in civil dress without an explanation being called from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this itself shows t