IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

205 CWP-26658-2016 (O&M).

Date of Decision: 28.01.2025.

NAVINDER KUMAR ... Petitioner(s)

Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate and Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate, for the respondents.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Challenging the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual/Part Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the year commencing from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, communicated vide letter dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. A further prayer has been made for promoting the petitioner

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner joined Border Security Force as a Clerk on 23.03.2011 and that based on the performance of the petitioner, he was graded as "Very Good" (2011-12; 2012-13; and 2013-14) in the APARs. He submits that during the Annual/Part Performance Report (APAR) for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, the Reporting Officer graded the petitioner as "Very Good" and recorded as under:-

"A royal, loyal, sincere hard worker HC (Min) who is keen in discharging the responsibility, complete devotion to duty regardless of personal cost. He has enough strength of will to keep himself imperturbable under moderate stress. He is loyal and obedient to authority. He keeps cordial relations amongst the staff and goodwill towards others. I grade him "VERY GOOD".

The overall Grade on a score of 1 to 10 was 6.52. The Reviewing Authority, however, passed the following remarks:-

“I partly disagree with remarks of 10. Individual needs to improve on his professional knowledge & its application to work."

The overall Grade on a scale of 1 to 10 was thus reduced to 5.12.

Thereafter, the Accepting Authority vide order dated 06.07.2015 has given an opinion about the petitioner which reads thus: -

"He needs to improve in his drafting as well as his lackadaisical approach. Overall grade (on a score of 1-10): 4.5"

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that upon receipt of the communication dated 08.07.2015 about the adverse remarks having been recorded, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commandant, 200 Bn. BSF for expunction of the adverse remarks in the Annual/Part Performance Report for the year 2014-15. He contends that the Commandant, 200 Bn BSF thereafter rejected his representation vide order dated 01.12.2015. He submits that the adverse remarks dated 02.07.2015 and the opinion dated 06.07.2015 given by the reviewing and accepting authority as also the subsequent order dated 01.12.2015 are challenged before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the reviewing and the accepting authority had not conveyed any complaints with respect to the work and conduct of the petitioner at any time prior to recording of an adverse remarks in his ACR, hence, the same is liable to be expunged. A reference is placed by him on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M.A. Rajsekhar Vs. The State of Karnataka, reported as 1996 (4) SCT 212. The operative part thereof reads thus:-

“5. It was found that his integrity was not doubted and his work also in all those respects was found to be satisfactory. Under those circumstances, the remark that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma" must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He should be given an opportunity in the cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given. Even when he acted in dilemma and lacked objectivity, in such circumstances, he must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he acted upon. Since this exercise has been done by the respondents, it would be obvious