JUDGMENT :

(M.V. Muralidaran, ACJ.)

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 17.8.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.681 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, which was filed to quash the order dated 16.1.2019 passed by the Director General, CRPF refusing to consider the representations dated 4.10.2018 and 13.11.2018 submitted by the appellant against the entries of grading “good” in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period from 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2018.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:

The appellant joined the CRPF on 1.12.1994 as Assistant Commandant and he has always been graded “outstanding” during his command of units. While he was posted as Commandant (IRLA3998), GC, CRPF, Langjing, Imphal, he had submitted his APAR for the year ending 2017-2018 on 5.4.2018 to the Reporting Officer, DIGP, GC, Langing. The said self appraisal was accepted by the Reporting Officer. However, the Reviewing Authority in Part IV of the APAR downgraded the numerical grading given by the Reporting Officer without giving any cogent reason and the same was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 16.8.2018. The said letter along with the copy of APAR was served on the appellant on 28.8.2018 to make a representation against the entry in the APAR. According to the appellant, by virtue of the downgrading of numerical grading by the Reviewing Authority, the overall grade of the appellant has been reduced from “very good” to “good” without giving the factual reason. The only reason given by the Reviewing Authority for disagreement with the Reporting Officer is that the grading of the officer is over assessed.

2.1. The appellant requested extension of time for submission of the representation against the grading/remarks recorded in APAR through letter dated 10.9.2018 and 26.9.2018. On 4.10.2018, the appellant has submitted his representation against the grading/remarks and the same was not considered as time barred. Again on 13.11.2018, the appellant submitted another representation against the grading/remarks and the same was also not considered as time barred by issuance of the order dated 16.1.2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2019, thereby refusing to consider the representation, the appellant has filed the writ petition.

2.2. By the impugned order dated 17.8.2022, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no illegality in refusing to consider the representations submitted by the appellant and in issuing the order dated 16.1.2019. The learned Single Judge also held that the Reviewing Authority had recorded in writing the reasons for downgrading the assessment given by the Reporting Officer in the APAR of the appellant in the year 2017-2018 and the authorities have not violated any provisions of the relevant guidelines of the Standing Order and have acted well within the power and jurisdiction. Challenging the said findings of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the writ appeal.

3. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the comments on pen picture written by the Reviewing Authority have been construed as reasons and justifications for downgradation by the learned Single Judge and the said comments are mere comments on the pen picture and are not justification for downgradation of individual attributes. The learned Single Judge accepted the general comment given by the Reviewing Authority against the downgradation.

4. Mr. M. Devananda, the learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the provision contained in the Standing Order of the CRPF that displeasure is not a penalty and cannot be considered for denial of promotion. In the present case, acceptance of the displeasure by the learned Single Judge as a valid ground for downgradation has the effec