The assessment of public servants must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness and objectivity in performance appraisals and providing necessary reasoning for downgrades.

ORDER

SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):

According to Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, the very object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve performance. While writing confidential report adhering to objectivity, it is required that the performance is watched and evaluated by the Reporting Officer and Reviewing/Accepting Officer from time to time and advisory memos, warnings explanatory notes needs to be issued to the officer if performance slackens down and has not been achieved to the desired level as an effort to apprise the concerned to improve efficiency and, in the event, if the performance still is not improved, adverse remarks would be recorded. The remarks are to be communicated not only to give an opportunity to the officer to improve his performance but also for him to know the details on which he has been reported adversely. This gives an opportunity to the officer to rebut the remarks and to persuade the authorities on production of relevant material(s) to take a contrary view. It is stated that notwithstanding the aforesaid position of law, the authorities concerned suddenly downgraded his evaluation in the APAR-I & -II for the year 2016-17 compared to the gradings of the previous and succeeding Assessment years without due application of mind. Though the applicant submitted representation giving full justification for expunction of remarks and upgradation of the gradings for the assessment year 2016-17, the authority concerned, without considering the representation in its proper perspective rejected the same in a cryptic/lunatic manner by orders dated 05.03.2018 and 05.03.2018; thereby compelling the Applicant to approach this Tribunal in the instant OA praying inter alia to direct the respondents to expunge the adverse remakes and reevaluate his APAR-I & II (2016-17) by quashing the rejection orders dated 05.03.2018 and letter dated 21.06.2019 with further direction to the respondents to give all consequential promotions and financial benefits with retrospective effect. In support of the relief prayed for in this OA, the applicant has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Dev Dutt Vs. UOI & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2513, State of UP Vs. Narendra Nath Sinha, AIR 2001 SC 3594, M/s Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors, (2010) 10 SCR 1070, and the instruction issued relating to the manner of recording the remarks in the APAR.

2. Relying on the counter filed by the respondents, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicant joined Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME) Group-A on 11.06.2012 and, after completing the training, he joined in the South Eastern Railways on 09.01.2014. He was promoted to Sr. Scale on 09.02.2017. Thereafter, he was promoted to Sr. DME (JAG) on ad hoc basis. Subsequently, he was reverted to Sr. Scale due to non- confirmation of his ad hoc promotion by the Railway Board and posted to East Coast Railways in Sr. Scale. During the reporting period in question (2016-17), he was working as AWM/Carriage-III in the workshop at Kharagpur. The Reporting Officer graded him by awarding 6.8 points in APAR Part-I, which was downgraded by the Reviewing Officer to 3.97. Further, the Reporting Officer had graded him by awarding 3.3 points in APAR Part-II, which was downgraded by the Reviewing Officer to 2.2 out of 10. Thus, he was awarded an average grading of 3.085 (3.97+2.2= 6.17/2) for the year 2016-17 with detailed reasons. It is stated that as per the instruction of the railway board circulat