The principles of natural justice do not require the administrative authority to record reasons for its decision when rejecting representations against adverse remarks.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Vyas, J. - These writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Jaipur, whereby the T.A.(Transferred Application) No. 19/2011, T.A.(Transferred Application) No. 18/2011 and O.A. (Original Application) No. 162/2012, were dismissed.

2. These three cases involved the same parties and similar issues relating to expunging of adverse remarks in Annual Performance Appraisal Report / Annual Confidential Reports, (APAR / ACRs) of the applicant-petitioner for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively.

3. It was the case of the petitioner that adverse remarks were made in the APAR / ACRs of the petitioner for the reporting years in question. The adverse remarks in question were as under:-

"TA No.19/2011:

Task Relevant Knowledge

"Task related knowledge is not adequate and he does not keep himself updated with latest instructions, though he has potential to do so."

Quality of output

"He did not sort out the problems amicably and his tendency is to put blame on others. This resulted non-execution of various works in time and some of the works could not be started."

TA No.18/2011:-

Task Relevant Knowledge

"The officer has satisfactory knowledge of functions and related instructions but lacks application."

Quality of output

"The officer can provide quality performance but lacks in output due to his negative approach and poor support base from his subordinates, colleagues and other agencies involved in the system. The adversely effects his standard of work, objectives and excellence in his work."

General assessment:

"He does not obey to his seniors and there is no effect to counselling on him".

Any adverse remarks including penalties imposed or warnings/displeasures communicated:

"He was issued displeasure letters on 09.12.03, 23.12.03 and 24.12.03.

OA No.162/2012:-

Quality of output

"Good"

Attributes:

General assessment:

"Under given circumstances his performance has been satisfactory. He uses Rajbhasa for most of his work".

Remarks of the Reviewing Authority:

"An average officer who has a potential to do better"."

4. The petitioner represented against the adverse remarks. These representations were rejected by the respondents vide letter / orders dated 20.09.2003, 23.09.2005 and 29.02.2012. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal for seeking the relief that these ACRs be declared as illegal and be quashed / set aside with consequential benefits, including promotion. The applicant-petitioner also prayed that the ACRs for the years in question, be graded as outstanding.

5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the parties dismissed the two TAs and one OA mentioned above. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the petitions with the following prayers :-

"It is, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the order dated 18.04.2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside. The original application made by the petitioner may kindly be allowed. The adverse remarks entered in the APAR of the petitioner may kindly be expunged. The respondents may be directed to grade the petitioner outstanding in the ACR for the year ending 31.03.2004.

Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

6. The petitioner had challenged the propriety, legality and constitutional validity of the impugned ACRs, inter alia, on the following grounds :-

(i) The principles of writing o