Adverse entries in APARs must be communicated to the employee and representations against such entries must be disposed of by a reasoned, objective order. Sudden deviations from a long-standing high-performance record, especially when bias is alleged, require verifiable justification to avoid being declared arbitrary or punitive.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

The petitioner in the instant writ petition is serving in the Assam Rifles in the rank of Subedar (Cipher). The petitioner is aggrieved by the adverse entries made in his ACR/APAR for the period of 2019 to 2020 and 2021 to 2022. He had submitted representations dated 06.09.2021, 19.12.2022, 06.01.2023 and 27.10.2023 before the respondent authorities against the adverse grading. However, the representations were not considered and therefore, he had preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 294/2023 before this Court praying for a direction to the respondents to dispose of his representations and to upgrade the gradings of his APAR for the period of 2019-2020 and 2021-2022. WP(C)/294/2023 was disposed of by an order dated 05.12.2023 with a direction to the respondents to examine and take a decision on the petitioner’s representations within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

In compliance of the order of this Court dated 05.12.2023, the respondents No. 2 by a Speaking order No.RK Sarkar/Rec Legal/1608/2024/576 dated 29.01.2024 rejected the representations of the petitioners holding that “the request of the petitioner to upgrade his ACR/APAR awarded to him by his Reporting Officers purely on the basis of the performance during the respective assessment years lacks merit, therefore, is hereby rejected.”

Aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the petitioner has come before this Court praying for a direction to quash and set aside the Speaking order dated 29.01.2024; the APAR gradings and adverse remarks of the petitioner for the period 01.09.2019 to 31.08.2020, 01.09.2021 to 30.06.2022 and for a further direction to the respondents to upgrade grading of the APAR of the petitioner for the period 2019-2020 and 2021-2022 and to promote the petitioner to the post of Subedar Major (Cipher) without affecting his seniority.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bijay Deb. Also heard, Mr. Z.N Ngullie, learned CGC for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have any adverse remarks in his service career of more than 34 years. It is stated that only when the petitioner was posted at 38 Assam Rifles at Teliamura, Tripura, he was deputed at the Official Canteen for about 1 (one) month for the distribution of CSD items under the command of the then Commandant, 38 Assam Rifles. He found that the staffs of the Official Canteen had illegally sold the CSD items and ration to the civilians and consequently he made a complaint to the Chief of Army, Government of India and the Complaint of the Petitioner was registered. Thereafter, a Staff Court of Inquiry was constituted for ascertaining the allegations made by the petitioner against the Commandant of 38 Assam Rifles.

Surprisingly, in connection with the said court of inquiry, the petitioner was charged with 2 (two) Tentative Charge Sheets dated 27.11.2019 and 11.12.2019, whereas the irregularities had never been committed by the petitioner, instead he was the complainant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court of Manipur by filing WP(C)/27/2020 praying for quashing the Tentative Charge Sheets famed against the petitioner and the same is still pending disposal before the said High Court.

It is also stated that after filing of the WP(C)/27/2020 before the Manipur High Court, the respondent No. 5 who was the Reviewing Officer for the APAR of the petitioner for the period 2019-2020 and 2021-2022 verbally instructed the petitioner on many occasions to withdraw the case. However, the petitioner did not do so. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 began to harass the petitioner without any valid reason and tried his best to expel the petitioner from service on the basis of false allegations.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 27.04.2020 when the petitioner went to the 18 AR Unit Hospital for regular Annual Medical Examination (A