Senior endorsing appraisal report before comments of subordinate officer unsustainable in law: Delhi High Court
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 25
Quashing an adverse appraisal report of a CRPF Commandant and granting him consequential service benefits, the Delhi High Court has held that a senior endorsing the report even before his subordinate officer in the hierarchy has entered his comments is unsustainable in law.
Under the three-tier system for annual performance appraisal report (APAR), the Commandant’s reporting officer, a Deputy Inspector General had graded him ‘below good’ in June 2017 and sent it to the reviewing officer in August 2017.
The reviewing officer, however, did not enter his remarks at that stage and the APAR was apparently forwarded directly to the accepting officer, the final level, who like the reporting officer graded the Commandant as ‘below good’ in September 2017.
The APAR was then forwarded to the reviewing officer, who, in his comments in October 2017 graded the Commandant as ‘very good’.
Since the accepting officer’s remarks were considered as the final grading for the APAR and were adverse, the Commandant petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General, CRPF and the Ministry of Home Affairs, which were rejected in 2019.
Another representation by him in January 2020 remained undecided, following which he moved the High Court.
The Commandant averred that a senior officer endorsing the APAR before his junior was not only contrary to the laid down procedure, but has even otherwise caused grave prejudice to him because the reviewing officer’s grading of ‘very good’ was not available with the accepting officer who had simply accepted the grading of ‘below good’ given by the reporting officer.
He averred that he was a decorated officer with several medals to his credit and has been wrongly downgraded from ‘very good’ to ‘below good’, thereby impacting his promotional avenues and future prospects.
He sought that the accepting officer’s grading be quashed and the ‘very good’ grading given by the reviewing officer be treated as final or the impugned APAR itself be set aside.
A Division Bench of the High Court, in its order of August 21, observed that the provision for the accepting officer to endorse his remarks on the APAR only after the assessment is made by both the reporting officer and the reviewing officer ensures that he has the advantage of the views expressed both his subordinates, and that had the grading of ‘very good’ endorsed by the reviewing officer also been available before the accepting officer, his assessment may have been different.
“When the assessment made by the reviewing officer was also violative of the procedure laid down in the standing orders, the said assessment can also not be sustained,” the Bench added.
Since both the reviewing officer and accepting officer have since retired and the APAR cannot be remanded back to them, the Bench set aside the APAR and directed that the Commandant be granted all consequential benefits, including consideration for promotion and other service benefits by ignoring the impugned APAR.
