File notings cannot be challenged as final orders; res judicata bars re-litigation of APAR issues after prior OA withdrawal with limited liberty; judicial review limited to procedural irregularities in performance appraisals.

ORDER 

Hon’ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-

The applicant is aggrieved by the APAR for the period 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017, whereby the reporting officer has given him a numerical grading of 3.3 and the same has been modified by the reviewing officer as 4, thereby, downgrading the applicant below the benchmark of 7. The said APAR was communicated to the applicant and he had submitted his representation. This representation has been rejected by the respondents by way of the impugned order dated 29.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) To direct the respondents to declare APAR of the applicant for period 01/01/2017-31/12/2017 as NO APAR or issue no certificate APAR (ii) To expunge the adverse remarks maliciously made by the reporting officer in APAR for period 01/01/2017-31/12/2017.

(iii) To set aside the assessment of the reporting officer and reviewing officer in APAR for period 01/01/2017-31/12/2017.

(iv) To set aside the report and decision of the competent authority dated 16/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 respectively.

(v) To call for the original records of the movement of the file of APAR for period 01/01/2017-31/12/2017 of the applicant

(vi) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also the granted to the applicant”

2. Ms. Vertika Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant makes the following submissions in support of the claim of the applicant:-

i. The reporting officer has prepared the APAR with bias and mala fide. She submits that in the APAR itself the reporting officer has attached certain documents so as to substantiate the grading given by him. She submits that these documents are in fact either forged or manipulated by the officer himself. With respect to this allegation, she submits that the applicant has preferred an FIR No. 537/22 at Patna, which is still pending investigation at Police Station. To strengthen her case, she submits that the documents annexed along with the APAR are placed at page 24 of the O.A. and the copies of the originals at page 249 of the O.A. She adds that the documents placed by the reporting officer are, in fact, different/ incomplete and therefore reporting officer has manipulated the same by placing half of the documents. To cite some examples, she draws attention to page 60/61 of the O.A. wherein certain noting comparing the two, are reflected.

ii. The reporting officer has only assessed the work of the applicant between 09.04.2017-31.12.2017 while the APAR has been written by him for the entire calendar year. The reporting officer was obliged to specifically mention the period for which he has assessed the work and conduct of the applicant and in the absence of the same, the APAR cannot be accepted.

iii. In terms of the provisions placed at page 73 of the synopsis, she submits that the reporting officer has placed certain additional sheets with the APAR to substantiate the grading and marks given by him. She submits that the same is not permissible in terms of the Department of Posts LR NO. 33-12/91 Vig dated 31.10.1991 (P. 73).

iv. Relying on the DoPT guidelines placed at page 20, she submits that the reporting officer is required to record a descriptive pen picture on the overall qualities of the appraise and his/her performance within 100 words only, the reporting officer could not exceed the word limit. In the present case, the reporting officer has gone well beyond this limit and therefore, even for this reason the APAR needs to be interfered with and quashed.

v. She draws attention to