W.P.(C)725/2020

Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 6^th April, 2021

+

W.P.(C) 725/2020 & CM APPL.2120/2020

KRISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vishwendra Verma &

Ms. Shivali, Advocates.

Versus

DIRECTOR (HR) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND

ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present Writ Petition impugns the order dated 18^th November,

2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench,

New Delhi. Vide the said impugned order, the CAT has dismissed OA

No.3337/2017 filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had sought

setting aside of order/memo dated 26^th February, 2017 passed by the

respondents; the expunging of adverse remarks/comments given in his

Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period of 2012-13

and setting aside the letter dated 14^th July, 2017 by which the respondents

have rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the point of maintainability.

2021:DHC:1217-DB

W.P.(C)725/2020

Page 2 of 6

2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are set out

hereinafter.

3. The petitioner joined the Department of Telecommunications as

Assistant Divisional Engineer Telephones in the year 1999. Thereafter, he

became an employee of BSNL, respondent no.1. He was promoted to the

post of Divisional Engineer Telephones in the year 2003; Director in the

year 2008 and Deputy General Manager (DGM) in the year 2011. The

petitioner was posted as DGM, Tezpur on 28.06.2011.

4. On 19^th July, 2013, the petitioner was communicated the APAR for

the period of 1^st April, 2012 to 2^nd February, 2013 by the respondents which

was below the benchmark. The petitioner sent representations dated

26.09.2013 and 31.05.2016 to the respondents for upgrading of the overall

grading and expunging the remarks/comments in APAR for the period of 1^st

April, 2012 to 2^nd February, 2013, which was below the benchmark. The

said representations of the petitioner were rejected by the respondents on

28^th February, 2014 and 26^th February, 2017 respectively. The petitioner

filed an appeal before the Competent Authority; however, the same was

rejected on the ground of maintainability. Aggrieved by the order/memo

dated 26^th

5. The said OA before the CAT was contested by the respondents by

filing counter affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner was that for the

period in question i.e. 1

February, 2017, the petitioner filed the OA before the CAT, from

which the present petition arises.

st April, 2012 to 2nd February, 2013, the Reporting

Authority gave 01 out of 10 numerical grading to the petitioner and in the

pen picture of the petitioner, serious dissatisfaction was expressed about his

2021:DHC:1217-DB

W.P.(C)725/2020

Page 3 of 6

performance. Reviewing Authority agreed with the said assessment made

by the Reporting Authority. The petitioner claims that the said assessment

was without any basis and Reviewing Authority has accepted the remarks

of the Reporting Authority in a mechanical manner without any application

of mind.

6. The CAT, in the impugned order, observed that (i) the method of

preparation of APARs is almost foolproof and the likes and dislikes of any

superior officer are not permitted to be reflected in the APAR, as there are

many safeguards provided in the system; (ii) further, when a representation

is made by an employee to the Competent Authority, the Competent

Authority satisfies himself by calling for remarks of the Reporting and the

Reviewing Officers for the concerned period and it is only when he finds a

serious error or when the employee concerned demonstrates that the

assessment was not proper, that the Competent Authority can interfere; (iii)

the