2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13312

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.G. Sewlikar, Judicial Member, Sangam Narain Srivastava, Administrative Member
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 18/2023

An appraisal process must be objective, fair, and documented. While consistent past performance is relevant, appraisal remarks are not necessarily invalid if the officer is aware of the specific circumstances underpinning the assessment, and references to ongoing, transparent investigations in the integrity column do not necessarily breach procedural guidelines.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) - Reviewing authority's power to downgrade - Requirement of fairness and objectivity - An officer's performance assessment must be founded upon facts or circumstances, and where a performance slide is noted, the superior officer should ideally seek to resolve the issue causing the decline, rather than relying on an erratic or whimsical assessment, particularly where the officer has a consistent record of outstanding performance. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

(B) Administrative Law - Integrity Column in APAR - Procedure for filling - Mandatory obligations under guidelines - Any adverse remark or suspicion regarding integrity must be based on documented instances and follow procedural fairness, including maintaining a confidential diary or issuing a separate secret note for follow-up departmental action; otherwise, remarks may be expunged for procedural non-compliance. (Paras 21-23, 33)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a senior government officer, challenged the downgrading of their performance appraisal in an APAR for a six-month period, which deviated from their consistent track record of outstanding performance. The reviewing authority had downgraded the rating and added remarks concerning the applicant's work style and conduct in specific controversial field situations. The applicant argued that the remarks were vague, lacked specificity, and that procedural guidelines for assessing integrity were violated.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that while the appraisal process requires objectivity, the applicant's own representation demonstrated an awareness of the specific controversial incidents that led to the remarks, negating the claim that the remarks were so vague as to be unanswerable. Regarding the integrity column, the reviewing authority refrained from making a definitive adverse assessment but referenced pending complaints, which the court found did not require a formal secret diary entry as the investigation was already a matter of record.

Issues: Whether the downgrading of an appraisal report was arbitrary and whether the failure to follow specific administrative guidelines regarding the integrity column and documentation rendered the appraisal illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee is aware of the context behind adverse remarks in an appraisal, the lack of specific, exhaustive instances in the remarks does not render them unconstitutional or arbitrary. Furthermore, when an integrity column is not filled with a definitive adverse finding but instead references ongoing, documented investigations, the rigid requirement for a 'secret note' or 'confidential diary' is not strictly violated, provided the process remains factual and fair.

Result: Application dismissed.