Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3711

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Pramodh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No.2432/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Applicant in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Gyanendra Singh

Adverse APAR entries invalid if lacking reasons, ignoring self-assessment, without prior improvement notice, or predetermined by pending enquiry; must comply with transparency guidelines for fairness.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) - DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 - Communication of entries - Adverse remarks must be based on objective assessment with prior opportunity to improve; Reporting and Reviewing Officers must apply mind and provide reasons, not stereotype or pre-judge based on pending enquiry without specifics - Self-assessment ignored without justification renders APAR arbitrary - Representation against adverse entries to be decided within 30 days objectively - APAR not to adversely affect promotion or career if vitiated (Paras 5.1 to 5.9)

(B) APAR - Purpose and principles - To enable improvement in performance, efficiency and excellence; entries must be fair, transparent, post-opportunity to correct deficiencies; non-communication or delay in disclosure violates natural justice; prior consistent good gradings relevant; no adverse entry without notice or guidance (Paras 5.2 to 5.5)

Facts of the case:
Sub-Inspector aggrieved by adverse APAR for 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019 graded 'Below Average' by Reporting Officer and accepted without reasons by Reviewing Officer, contrary to positive self-assessment claiming cent percent disposal of cases, zero grievances and timely performance - Representation rejected after delay citing pending departmental enquiry and punishment, without evaluating merits or providing prior improvement notice.

Findings of Court:
APAR observations predetermined on pending enquiry premise without date reference or prior notice; Reviewing Officer failed to apply mind, merely initialling without reasoning; violated DoPT guidelines and settled law; prior good appraisals not considered; impugned APAR quashed, not to count for future service.

Issues: Validity of adverse APAR ignoring self-assessment without reasons or prior opportunity; adequacy of representation disposal citing enquiry; compliance with timelines and transparency in APAR process.

Ratio Decidendi: APAR must be objective, reasoned and post-opportunity for improvement; lack of application of mind by Reviewing Officer, disregard of self-assessment and prior good records render it arbitrary and liable to quashing; cannot prejudge guilt from pending proceedings without specifics.

Result: Original Application allowed; impugned APAR and appellate order quashed and set aside; APAR for period not to be considered for future service conditions and career prospects.

Table of Content
1. applicant's challenge to adverse apar grading (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents justify apar based on departmental enquiry (Para 3)
3. apar guidelines require transparency and opportunity to improve (Para 5)
4. quash impugned apar for procedural violations (Para 6)

O R D E R By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks following reliefs:-

i) That this Tribunal summons the records from the respondents. Relating to APAR for the period in question and applicant be allowed inspection of the APAR and other connecting documents.

ii) To quash and set aside the APAR (Annexure-A1) & the appellate order (Annexure-A2) being illegal and issue direction to the respondents to grade the applicant as "Out Standing" based on actual performance in the self-

assessment of APAR.

iii) To declare that (Annexure-A1) APAR and the appellate order in (Annexure-A2) shall not be a bar for considering the applicant for promotion or for entitlement for financial upgradation under MACP and also for any other purpose relating to the service.

iv) To allow the O.A.

v) Award cost of the proceedings and pass such other and further orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

2. The applicant is aggrieved that the Reviewing Officer rejected his representation regarding the upgradation of remarks in the APAR for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019, through a cryptic and uninformative order.

2.1 The said order culminates from the APAR for the part-reporting period from 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019. The said APAR in question reads as follows:

ANNEXURE-AI A180127-188-0007 JUGAL JUGAL DELHI POLICE DEPARTMENT Form of Confidential Report on Inspectors, Sub-inspectors and Asstt.

Sub-Inaprs. (Executive)

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: EAST DISTRICT: DELHI Period of report 01.04.19 to 31.1019 PIS No. 16140335 PART-1

1. Rank, Name & No. SI(Exe.) Pramod Kumar, D-5326

2. Date of Birth: 01.04.1978 3. Height: 183 cms

4. Weight: 90 Kg 5. Chest. 80 cm 6. Waist. 36”

7. Health: Excellent/Very Good/Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory

8. Present post and date of appointment thereto:

9. Period of Report: 01-04-19 to 31-10-19

10. Place of posting: P.S. MAYURVIHAR, PART-II SELF ASSESSMENT : (To Be filled By The Officer Reported Upon)

(A) Please specify 8 to 10 targets/goals/objectives that were set for you and task assigned to you in order of priority.

1) INVESTIGATION OFFICER OF MAJOR CRIMES & SPRING OFFENCES

2) EMERGENCY Officer

3) ATTENDED HIGH COURT&DISCTRIC COURTS ON BEHALF OF SHO

4. CENT PERCENT DISPOSAL OF COMPLAINTS VIZ CMTS/PHMS/TIMED/VIP JUGAL JUGAL

5) TIMELY DISPOSAL OF CASE FILES TO COURT.

6) WATER TIGHT CHMAR SHEET SHEETS & REPLY TO BAIL APPLICATION IN CASES OF OTHER IO'S FUNTIOEN ALLOTED TO THE UNDERSIANED FONABLING ACCUSED PERSONS NO LEEWAY

7) NIL GRIEVANCE/ COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE UNOFASIANE IN INVESTIGATION OF FERS & FANQUINIES IN COMPLAINTS.

8) LAW AN ORDER DUTIES / ARRANGEMENT DUTIES

9) DIVISIONAL OFFICER DUTIES (B) Were you able to achieve the above mentioned goals/tasks assigned to you? YES (C) In case of shortfalls, reasons thereof. NA (D) Any special improvements/achievements by you in your area of duty. CENTPERCENT DESEO-OF CASE FILES WITH APPLICATION OF RULE OF LAW WETIO ELAN EN TIME BOUND MANNER. ZERO TIME FOR CASES ENSURED PART-III (To Be filled by the Reporting Authority)

JUGAL JUGAL (OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE GRADED OUTSTANDING UNLESS EXCEPTIONAL QUALITIES AND PERFORMANCE HAVE BEEN NOTICED, GROUNDS FOR GIVING SUCH A GRADING SHOULD BE CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT)

Sd/-

(Signature of the Reporting Authority)

Name (In Block letters)- SAURABH CHANDRA Designation- Asstt. Commissioner of Police PART-IV (Remarks of the Reviewing Officer)

The Reviewing Officer should carefully consider and state whether he accepts the assessment recorded by the Reporting Officer in all respects. If he differs from the Reporting Officer in any respect, the fact should be clearly stated.”

SD/-

(Reviewing Officer)

2.2 It has been specifically u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3711

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALManish Garg, Member (J), Anand S Khati, Member (A)Pramodh Kumar – AppellantVersusCommissioner of Police, Delhi – RespondentO.A. No.2432/2022

Adverse APAR entries invalid if lacking reasons, ignoring self-assessment, without prior improvement notice, or predetermined by pending enquiry; must comply with transparency guidelines for fairness.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Pramodh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No.2432/2022