CHANDAN KUSHWAHA vs COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

Item No. 15 (C-V)

1
OA No. 4320/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRAT
IVE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, N
O.A. No. 4320/2
th
This the 30 day of Oct
Chhabilendra Roul, Member
ri Rajveer Singh Verma, Memb
2026
tober, 2026
Hon’ble Dr.
Hon’ble Shr


Cha
Age
S/o
R/o
Sou



(By Advoca
Mr. Avinash Kuma
(A)
ber (J)
andan Kushwaha (Assistant Audi
it Officer)
e about 37 years
Sh. Bhaiya Ram Kushwaha
G 129, CPWD Quarters, Nanak
uth Moti Bagh, Delhi 110021
k Pura



…. Applicant
ate: Mr. Sudhanwesh Kumar Bha
ardwaj, Mr. Kumar Abhinav,
ar

Versus

1. Comptrol
Through Dy
O/o CAG o
New Delhi

2. The Direct
Finance and
Shamnath M

3. The Dy. D
O/o The Dir
Finance and
Shamnath M

4. Jitendra K
ller and Auditor General of India
y. Comptroller and Auditor Gene
a
eral (HR)
f India, Pocket 9, Deendayal Up
110124
adhyay Marg
tor General of Audit,
d Communication
Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054
Director (AMG-II) (Reviewing O
Officer)
rector General of Audit
d Communication
Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054
Kumar (Reporting Officer)
Senior Audi
O/o The Dir
Finance and
Shamnath M




(By Advocat
it Officer (presently working as
rector General of Audit
d Communication
Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054
an Assistant Audit Officer)
… Respondents
s

te: Dr. SS Hooda, Mr. Aayushma
an Aeron)
ANJA
ANJALI
NEGI
2026.11.03
16:22:43
+05'30'
LI
NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

2
OA No. 4320/2026
ORDER (ORAL
L)

esent OA has been filed by
The pre
y the applicant seeking to
o
set asi
ide the order dated 07
7.08.2026, whereby the
e
respond
dents have rejected his re
epresentation challenging
g
the AP
PAR grading for the per
riod from 05.10.2023 to
o
12.01.20
024. Learned counsel fo
or the applicant submits
s
that, d
during the period imm
mediately preceding and
d
succeed
ding the aforesaid peri
iod, the applicant was
s
consiste
ently graded as 'Outsta
anding', with numerical
l
grading
g of more than 8. Howe
ever, for the intervening
g
period
of approximately three m
months, his grading was
s
reduced
d to 5. Learned counse
el further submits that,

during
the relevant period, the
e applicant was working
g
under M
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, who
o was one rank senior to
o
him and
d was the Reporting Offic
er. It is further submitted
d
that, su
ubsequent to the period u
under consideration, Mr.

Jitendr
ra Kumar was demoted to
o the same rank as that of
f
the app
plicant. Learned counsel
for the applicant further
r
draws a
attention to paragraph 4.
9 of the OA, wherein the
e
applica
nt has set out the circum
mstances in which he was
s
working
g during the relevant peri
iod and has indicated the
e
probabl
le reasons for the sudd
den downgrading of his
s
ANJA
ANJALI
NEGI
2026.11.03
16:22:43
+05'30'
LI
NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

3
OA No. 4320/2026
APAR f
from his consistently outs
tanding performance to a
a
numeri
ical grading of 5. It is
further submitted that,

during
the relevant period,
no memorandum or
r
commu
unication was issued to th
he applicant, nor was any
y
verbal a
advice given to him to imp
prove his performance. To
o
the bes
st of his knowledge, the a
applicant had discharged
d
his duti
ies sincerely and in accor
rdance with the standards
s
expecte
ed of him by the respo
ondents. In view of the
e
aforesa
id circumstances, learned
d counsel for the applicant
t
alleges
that the Reporting Offic
cer was personally biased
d
against
the applicant and that,
owing to such bias, his
s
APAR
was deliberately downg
graded to a numerical
l
grading
g of 5, adversely affecting h
his career prospects.
2. Issu
ue notice. Mr. Aayushman
n Aeron, learned counsel
l
who ap
ppears for respondents on
n advance service, accepts
s
notice.
Learned counsel for the
respondents seeks and is
s
allowed
d four weeks’ time to file re
eply.
3. At th
his stage, learned counsel
for the applicant submits
s
that the
e APAR in question perta
ains to a short period of 3
3
months
s and 7 days, whereas
the applicant has been
n
graded
as 'Outstanding', with a
a score of more than 8,

during
the periods immediately p
preceding and succeeding
g
ANJA
ANJALI
NEGI
2026.11.03
16:22:43
+05'30'
LI
NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

4
OA No. 4320/2026
the sa
aid period. He further
submits that, in the
e
circums
stances, the adverse asses
sment for the intervening
g
period
appears to be inexplicabl
le and may indicate some
e
degree
of prejudice against the
e applicant. Accordingly,

learned
d counsel for the applica
ant seeks permission to
o
make
a fresh representation
n to the respondents,

request
ting them to reconsider
the applicant's case and
d
take a f
fresh decision thereon, p
particularly in light of the
e
reasons
s and grounds set out by th
he applicant in paragraph
h
9 of the
e OA.
4. Lear
rned counsel for the resp
pondents states that the
e
respond
dents have no objection if
such direction be issued.
5. In v
view of the above, with
the consent of learned
d
counsel
ls for the parties, the pre
sent OA is disposed of at
t
the adm
mission stage itself with th
he liberty to the applicants
s
to file a
a fresh representation with
hin a period of seven days
s
from th
he date of certified copy of
f this order.
6. The
respondents are directe
ed to consider the fresh
h
represe
entation of the applicants
and pass a reasoned and
d
speakin
ng order within a period
of eight weeks from the
e
date of
receipt of such representa
ation.
ANJA
ANJALI
NEGI
2026.11.03
16:22:43
+05'30'
LI
NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

5
OA No. 4320/2026
7. We
make it emphatically c
clear that we have not
t
examin
ned or expressed any opini
ion in respect of merits of
f
the case
e.
8. The
OA is disposed of in the
e above manner. Pending
g
MA als
so stands disposed of acc
cordingly. No order as to
o
costs.

(Rajveer Singh V
Member (J)

an

Verma) (Dr.
)
Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (A)
ANJA
ANJALI
NEGI
2026.11.03
16:22:43
+05'30'
LI
NEGI