Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5126

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member, Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
Soumi Parbat – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 350/333/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. C. Das
For the Respondents: P. N. Sharma

Administrative authorities are bound by judicial directives to decide representations on merits; a cryptic order relying solely on procedural technicalities while ignoring substantive performance facts is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) - Upgradation of grading - Judicial review - Where a Tribunal directs an authority to reconsider a representation on merits, the authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the substantive grievances rather than relying solely on procedural objections such as limitation or maintainability. (Paras 5.5, 5.7, 5.8)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement of Reasoned Orders - An order carrying civil consequences, such as impact on promotional or financial benefits, must be reasoned and exhibit an application of mind to relevant facts and past service records. (Paras 5.2, 5.7).

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Senior Auditor, consistently secured 'Very Good' in her APAR for years, but was downgraded to 'Good' for 2020-21, affecting her MACP benefits. Previous representations were rejected on technical grounds. Finding the authority’s response to a previous Tribunal order non-compliant and cryptic, the applicant challenged the latest speaking order.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order failed to address the merits of the applicant’s grievance as directed by the Tribunal in an earlier order, instead relying on procedural hurdles. The Tribunal held that such an order lacks the necessary application of mind.

Issues: Whether the administrative authority complied with the Tribunal’s earlier directive to decide the APAR representation on its merits, and whether the rejection was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: When a judicial body mandates a comprehensive consideration of a representation, the administrative authority is obligated to perform an independent examination of the merits and produce a reasoned decision, rather than reiterating procedural technicalities.

Result: The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded to the competent authority for a fresh, reasoned decision within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. historical facts leading to the challenge of apar grading. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argue over procedural vs substantive validity of apar representation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. requirement for reasoned administrative orders following judicial mandates. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

O R D E R

Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant assailing, inter alia, the impugned speaking order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure A/22), as well as, the earlier communications dated 28.11.2023 and 02.01.2024 (Annexure A/12 collectively), whereby her claim for upgradation of APAR grading for the year 2020-21 from “Good” to “Very Good” has not been acceded to. The applicant has, inter alia, sought the following relief(s):

“(a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned speaking order No. 520/AN 1/APAR/TRF.IN/Vol. XIV dated 24.10.2024 issued by an incompetent authority by not taking approval from the Controller General of Defence Accounts and the entire speaking order is cryptic in nature and the Joint Controller of Defence Accounts has no authority to take a decision at his own without taking approval from the Controller General of Defence Accounts. Such speaking order (cryptic in nature) may be liable to be quashed and/or set aside by imposing an exemplary cost upon the person concerned for harassing the present applicant being Annexure A-22 of this original application.

b) A direction upon the respondent authorities particularly the Senior Accounts Officer (AN) to review the decision made on 28.11.2023 and 02.01.2024 by considering the previous APAR submitted since 2011 of the applicant and to direct the reviewing authority to make evaluation by giving 6 marks so that the applicant can get "very good" remark and also entertained to get consequential benefits in her service career.

c) To quash and/or set aside the notices dated 28.11.2023 and 02.01.2024 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer (AN) and to issue a fresh decision by considering the APAR submitted by the applicant from the very beginning.

d) To direct the authority concerned to consider the memorial/appeal on the basis of the leave granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/01301/2023 by the applicant of the APAR submitted in 2020-21 by considering the Covid situation at that point of time and also by following the previous APAR submitted by the applicant since 2014 as well as 2021-22 and 2022-23.

e) A direction upon the reviewing authority i.e, the respondent No. 9 to make overall grade as 6 instead of 5.81 in APAR 2020-21 so that the applicant can get proper service benefits along with all consequential benefits.

f) A direction upon the reporting authority being respondent No. 10 to delete the adverse remark which is not acceptable to a female employee from para 8 and applicant may render her office work properly.

g) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to upgrade the APAR of the applicant for the year 2020-21 from 'good' to 'very good' by setting aside and/or quashing the impugned speaking order dated 24.10.2024 and impugned notices dated 28.11.2023 and 02.01.2024 in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited above (supra) along with all consequential benefits;”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The applicant is presently working as Senior Auditor under the office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts. It is her case that since her induction into service in 2011, she has consistently maintained a commendable service record and has been graded “Very Good” in her APARs for the period from 2014 up to 2019-20. However, for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, her APAR grading was recorded as “Good”, with marks below 6, which has adversely affected her entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme due in April, 2024.

2.1. It is contended that the said downgrade was effected without any prior warning, memo or communication pointing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5126

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSuchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member, Diwakar Singh, Judicial MemberSoumi Parbat – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentO.A. No. 350/333/2025

Administrative authorities are bound by judicial directives to decide representations on merits; a cryptic order relying solely on procedural technicalities while ignoring substantive performance facts is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member, Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
Soumi Parbat – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 350/333/2025