Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 836

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Rahul Sachan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00373/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Shri Sayed S Kazi

DPC assesses promotion suitability based on APAR entries, not just numerical grading; unexpunged adverse remarks justify 'Unfit' finding despite benchmark met; limited judicial review absent perversity.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) - Guidelines (DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989) - Promotion assessment - DPC must assess suitability based on entries in confidential reports (CRs/APARs) for preceding 5 years, not merely overall numerical grading - Even if benchmark met, serious adverse remarks by reporting and reviewing officers justify 'Unfit' finding - Adverse entries, once finalised after representation and not further challenged/expunged, cannot be ignored by DPC or court at promotion stage - Limited judicial review of DPC decisions; no interference absent perversity, illegality or mala fides. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 19)

(B) Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) - Adverse entries - Communicated entries challenged via representation but upheld become final - Cannot be collaterally attacked or disregarded in subsequent DPC proceedings - Estoppel applies if not timely pursued through available remedies. (Paras 10, 12)

(C) Service Law - Promotions - Subsequent DPC considering later APARs (outside earlier reckonable period) may recommend promotion, negating need for retrospective relief. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, working as Inspector, challenged DPC's 'Unfit' finding for promotion to Superintendent based on adverse remarks in one year's APAR (despite meeting numerical benchmark), seeking quashing of rejection letters, fresh review DPC, retrospective promotion from junior's date with consequential benefits. Adverse remarks detailed indiscipline, poor work output, insubordination, rudeness; initially challenged unsuccessfully, not further pursued.

Findings of Court:
DPC comprising five senior officers rightly considered unexpunged adverse entries by one reporting and two reviewing officers; decision neither arbitrary nor perverse. Applicant later promoted by subsequent DPC for different vacancy year.

Issues: Whether DPC erred in deeming applicant 'Unfit' relying on adverse APAR entries despite overall benchmark met; scope of judicial review over DPC recommendations; entitlement to retrospective promotion.

Ratio Decidendi: DPC has discretion to evaluate APAR entries beyond numerical grading per DoPT guidelines; finalised adverse remarks binding, not ignorable; no grounds for interference where multi-member DPC objectively assesses records without established mala fides.

Result: Original Application dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant's challenge to dpc denial of promotion (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act. 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal (b) Quash and set aside the impugned replies (i) Letter No.GCCO/II/PROM/3/2024- ESTT.O/o Pr.CC-CGST ZONE dated 5.2.2024 (ANNEXURE A1) passed by Third respondent and (ii) Letter F No.II/88/2021- ESTT-O/o COMMR-CGST-BENGALURU(S) dated 3.5.2024 (ANNEXURE A2) passed by Fourth respondent;

(c) Declare that the findings of the DPC in its meeting dated 2.1.2024 in so far as the applicant is concerned as arbitrary and unsustainable;

(d) Consequently direct the respondents to convene a review DPC and consider the case of the applicant for promotion in accordance with law and to promote him from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits including the seniority and pay and allowances, if need be by creating a supernumerary post.

(e) and grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the SHAINES C H applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this OA in the interest of justice.”

2. The above mentioned reliefs are claimed on the following grounds and legal provisions:

“5.1. The denial of promotion to the applicant even when he has met with the overall grading is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. In view of this the impugned reply is also unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

5.2. The applicant has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity, honesty and efficiently and thereby he has earned excellent grading in all the years except one year. The applicant has culled out his grading from his APAR from the year of his appointment till the latest APAR which is as below.

SHAINES C H A8)

2022-23 10 10 (Annexure A9)

From the perusal of the above tabulation it is crystal clear that every year the applicant's grading has not only been up to the mark but in fact going up steadily from 2016-17 to 2018-19 but there is a steep fall in the grading for the year 2019-20 and again has gone up from 2020-21 steadily till the latest available report. The applicant has been working under the supervision of different officers and has always been graded highly except for the year 2019-20 as is evident from the tabulation above. As the bench mark of APAR required for promotion from the post of Inspector to Superintendent of Central Excise is 4 and above and as the applicant has secured 4 and above in all the relevant years there was no reason for the DPC not to have recommended his case for promotion. However, the decision of the DPC that because of the adverse remarks of both the reporting and reviewing officers for the year 2019-20 the applicant's case has not been recommended for promotion is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable.

5.3. The applicant humbly submits that for the year 2019-20 there were two reports one for the period from 1.4.2019 to 22.11.2019 [Annexure A6(1)] and another for the period from 23.11.2019 to 31.3.2020 [Annexure A6(2)]. This was because there was a change in the officer functioning as the reviewing authority. While the reviewing authority in Annexure A6(1) was Smt. Pallavi Anand it was Shri N.B. Harish Ballal in Annexure A6(2). However, the reporting authority was the same official viz., Shri Venkatesh S, Superintendent for the entire year 2019-2020 under report. The reporting officer has not given the remarks for the sincere duty rendered by the applicant but has given 4/10 marks for extraneous reasons in both the reports and the respective reviewing officers have concurred SHAINES C H with the remarks given by the reporting officer without assigning why they agree with the grading of the reporting officer. On receipt of both the reports the applicant submitted representations which have not yielded any improvement in his gra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 836

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS. Sujatha, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative MemberRahul Sachan – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00373/2024

DPC assesses promotion suitability based on APAR entries, not just numerical grading; unexpunged adverse remarks justify 'Unfit' finding despite benchmark met; limited judicial review absent perversity.

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Rahul Sachan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00373/2024