Digitally signed by LAIRENM LAIRENMAYU AYUM M INDRAJEET Item No. 68 SINGH INDRAJE IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR Date:

ET SINGH2025.05.07 AT IMPHAL

16:37:29 +05'30'

WP(C) No. 429 of 2024 Manoj Kumar Sharma Petitioner Vs.

Union of India & 4 ors. Respondents BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

07.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Devananda Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI assisted by Mr. Nongdamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF, thereby rejecting the representation dated 15.06.2023 submitted by the petitioner with a request for expunging the adverse entries in his APARfor the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, 06.10.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to 13.09.2020.

The case of the petitioner is that he submitted a representation dated 15.06.2023 to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (through proper channel) with a request to consider and expunge the adverse entries in the petitioner’s APAR for the above mentioned period. According to the petitioner, without considering his representation on merit, the authorities rejected his representation by issuing the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 only on the sole ground that the said representation istimebarred in termsof theprovisionscontained in DoP&T office memorandum dated 14.05.2009.

On perusal of the said office memorandum dated 14.05.2009, more particularly, the provisions under para 2 (ii) & (iv), it transpires that the incumbent is entitled to be communicated his full APAR including the overall grade and assessment of integrity after the Report iscomplete with the remarks of the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority. It is also mandated under the said office memorandum that the concerned officer should begiven theopportunity to make any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the Report within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries in the APAR. According to the petitioner, the authoritiesnever communicated such adverse entries in his APAR to him in any point of time and that rejection of his representation on the ground of delay and without considering it on merit by solely relying on the provisions of the office memorandum is blatantly in violation of the provisions of the office memorandum and as such, interference of this Court is necessary by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. It has been also urged on behalf of the petitioner that after quashing the impugned order, a direction may be issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner for expunging the adverse entries in his APAR on merit.

The learned DSGI appearing for the respondents, draws the attention of this Court to the representation submitted by the petitioner and pointed out that it hasbeen clearly mentioned by thepetitioner himself in the said representation that he came to know about the adverse entries in hisAPARand assuch, it can bedeemed that theauthoritieshavealready communicated to the petitioner the adverse entries in his APAR and the authoritieshavenot committed any illegality in rejecting hisrepresentation by issuing the impugned order in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid office memorandum.

On careful examination of the statement made by the petitioner in his representation, it cannot be ascertained on which date he came to know about the adverse entries in his APARthrough online and as such, it cannot also be ascertained whether the petitioner submitted the said representation within the prescribed period of 15(fifteen) days or not. In my considered view, without ascertaining the factum as to whether the said representation was submitted within 15(fifteen) days from the date of knowledge by