An isolated, below-benchmark APAR entry that is inconsistent with a long-standing meritorious service record and lacks specific evidence or prior warning of deficiencies is considered arbitrary, and cannot be used as a valid basis to deny promotional opportunities to a public servant.

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to expunge the adverse remarks and grading given to the petitioner in the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the tenure 1st April, 2022 to 31st March, 2023 (Annexure P11) and for quashing the order dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure P19) passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to convene a review DPC for the purpose of re-considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Commandant from the date his immediate juniors were promoted along with consequential benefits.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is presently working as Second-in-Commandant (2IC) with the ITBP, Panchkula, has been denied promotion as Second-in-Command Officer to Commandant in ITBP Police Force, solely on the basis of the APAR for 2022-23 wherein he has been graded 3.5 (“Average”), which is contrary to his otherwise consistent “Excellent/Outstanding/Very Good” record from 2019-20 to 2024-25 and his 37 years of unblemished service with medals, commendations and UN Mission tenure, thereby rendering this solitary aberrant entry ex facie arbitrary.

(3). It is asserted that the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed without assigning any reason that because of repeated complaints sent by the petitioner against his seniors (Annexures P7, P8 & P8A) to the DG regarding constant threat of adverse APAR for spoiling his career, the adverse report has been used as a weapon to ruin his career where IG Ishwar Singh Duhan took out his irritation by recording adverse APAR against the petitioner for the period 2022-23 only on the ground that the petitioner availed six months’ leave which is wrong and against the record.

(4). It is contended that the said IG lowered his APAR to ‘average’ by giving his comments that the petitioner is obese and does not maintain good health whereas the reporting officer has certified his health as ‘Shape-1’ and as such, there is no contemporaneous medical record of underperformance or misconduct by the petitioner during 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and in fact, he was entrusted with additional charge of Commandant. He then submits that while making adverse remarks, specific instances from where such inferences were drawn must be mentioned and also conveyed to the concerned officer which has not been done in the present case. Reliance is placed on Sukhdeo v. Commissioner, Amravati Division (1996) 5 SCC 103, to contend that before recording adverse remarks it is salutary to give prior written intimation of deficiencies.

(5). Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate vehemently argued that the petitioner has consistently demonstrated exemplary service throughout his career, as is evident from his APARs prior to and after the year 2022-23, which have all along been reflected 'Excellent' and 'Outstanding' overall Grading for the past many years (Annexures P-13 to P-17) and thus, it is beyond comprehension as to how there can be sudden fall in the petitioner's performance for the year 2022-2023 only in numerical grading of merely 3.5 only without issuing any displeasure or warning or Show-Cause notice by the accepting Authority which smacks of vindictiveness and mala fides, and