* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 9^th January, 2026.

Pronounced on: 10th March, 2026.

Uploaded on: 10^th March, 2026.

+ W.P.(C) 7913/2018 INDERJEET SINGH SIDHU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. SN Kaul and Mr. Vinod Z., Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anju Gupta & Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advs for UOI.

Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Mr. Abhinav Pandey and Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Advs. for R-2 to 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This petition questions the legality of the “Unsatisfactory” grading recorded in the Petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report¹ for the year 2015- 2016, and the decision communicated on 11^th August, 2017 rejecting his representation. The challenge is to the fairness and legality of the process by which an adverse assessment was recorded, endorsed, and then defended by the very authority whose endorsement was under challenge.

Facts

2. The Petitioner joined EdCIL (India) Limited in August, 2008 as General Manager (Civil & Procurement) and was subsequently re- designated as Chief General Manager. He asserts that his ACRs were consistently graded “Outstanding” or “Very Good” until the impugned year 2015-2016. He submits that for 2015-2016, targets were fixed at the beginning of the year on 1^st April, 2015 and were later revised and supplemented on 23^rd December, 2015, leaving an unworkable period for completion. The Petitioner also relies on contemporaneous material to say that the concerned division faced structural constraints, including shortage of technical manpower and project-gestation characteristics, which were placed before the management in writing.

3. The Petitioner further asserts that during the relevant year he met with an accident on official duty at Srinagar (Uttarakhand) on 28^th August, 2015, underwent surgery on 16^th September, 2015, and remained under medical restriction for a substantial period.

4. He resigned from service with effect from 20^th June, 2016. His case is that he had submitted the self-appraisal/ACR proforma on 30^th May, 2016, and the subsequent delay in finalisation of the ACR was attributable to the Respondents.

5. The Petitioner contends that he learnt of the “Unsatisfactory” grading through RTI. He thereafter made representations, culminating in a representation dated 13^th July, 2017 addressed to the competent authority. The rejection was communicated on 11^th August, 2017. He also relies on a further communication dated 4^th September, 2017 indicating that the Reviewing Authority and the Appellate Authority were treated as the same, namely the Chairman and Managing Director.

Petitioner’s Submission

6. Petitioner raises the following grounds in support of the petition:

1 “ACR”

6.1. The challenge is directed not at the merits of the performance assessment but at the legality and fairness of the process culminating in the “Unsatisfactory” grading for the year 2015-2016 and the rejection of the Petitioner’s representation on 11^th August, 2017. It is contended that the process suffers from procedural irregularity and violation of principles of natural justice.

6.2. The Petitioner’s ACRs prior to 2015-2016 were consistently graded “Outstanding” or “Very Good”. The sudden downgrading to “Unsatisfactory” is unsupported by any contemporaneous reasoning or material on record.

6.3. The targets for the relevant year were initially fixed on 1^st April, 2015 by the Reporting Officer and were subsequently revised on 23^rd December, 2015, when a substantial part of the year had already elapsed. This belated revision rendered achievement of the revised targets impracticable.

6.4. The alleged shortfall was attributed solely to him, even though the targets were implemented through a team structure within the same vertical. It is argued that other officials involved in the same activities were not subjected to adverse grading.

6.5. Emphasis is also placed on staff constraints during the year, particularly transfer out of the Deputy Manager (Procureme