Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16311

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J
Rajib Kumar Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C)/45/2024|I.A.(Civil)/4/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bijay Deb, Pakinrichapbo
For the Respondents: CGSC

Adverse entries in an employee's Annual Performance Appraisal Report must be objective, fair, and documented without bias. When an employee challenges such entries, the authority must provide a reasoned, transparent decision; failure to do so, especially when the employee has a long-standing unblemished career, renders the entries punitive and invalid.

Headnote:(A) Annual Confidential Report (ACR) / Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) - Adverse entries - Communication - Mandatory - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India held that every entry, not just adverse ones, must be communicated to the employee to enable them to make a representation against it, ensuring transparency and fairness in the promotion process (Para 16).

(B) APAR - Objective assessment - Reporting/Reviewing Authority - The Reporting Officer bears an onerous responsibility to eschew subjectivity and personal prejudice in assessing subordinate officers, as noted in S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa. Assessment must be fair, dispassionate, and constructive (Para 17).

(C) Natural Justice - Reasoned Decision - Authorities disposing of representations against adverse APAR entries must provide clear and explicit reasons, rather than issuing summary dismissals, to demonstrate that the representation was adequately considered (Para 21).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Subedar (Cipher) in the Assam Rifles with 34 years of unblemished service, challenged the adverse entries in his APAR for 2019-2020 and 2021-2022. The petitioner alleged these entries were retaliatory, motivated by his previous complaints regarding administrative irregularities and his refusal to be admitted to the Unit Hospital. The respondents' speaking order rejecting his representations lacked reasoning, prompting the present challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the adverse entries were punitive and based on extraneous considerations. The respondents failed to provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner's representation, and allegations of bias against commanding officers remained uncontroverted. The court set aside the impugned speaking order and the adverse APAR entries.

Issues: Whether the adverse APAR entries were vitiated by bias, lack of objectivity, and failure to provide reasons for representation rejection; whether the petitioner is entitled to an expungement of adverse entries and consequential promotion.

Ratio Decidendi: An objective assessment of an employee's performance requires considering their entire career trajectory; a sudden downgrade after years of high performance requires thorough justification. APARs are meant to be reformative, not punitive, and the denial of fair representation through a reasoned order violates principles of natural justice.

Result: Petition allowed; adverse APAR entries expunged; respondents directed to conduct review promotion process.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16311

GAUHATI HIGH COURTYarenjungla Longkumer, JRajib Kumar Sarkar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentWP(C)/45/2024|I.A.(Civil)/4/2025

Cases Referred (5)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J
Rajib Kumar Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C)/45/2024|I.A.(Civil)/4/2025