Adverse APAR remarks recorded without prior notice for improvement or reasoned review are legally unsustainable.

The applicant, a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police, challenged the adverse remarks and "Below Average" grading recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.10.2019

The Reporting Officer (RO) graded the applicant "Below Average" primarily citing the initiation of a Departmental Enquiry (DE) regarding pending investigation files

The Reviewing Officer (RevO) accepted this assessment by merely initialing the report without providing independent reasons

The applicant’s representation for upgradation was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 31.08.2021 (communicated on 01.09.2021), citing the DE and a subsequent temporary punishment of forfeiture of service

The applicant contended that the remarks were arbitrary, lacked specific grounds for disagreement with his self-assessment, and violated principles of natural justice as no prior notice to improve was given

1. Whether the APAR grading and the subsequent rejection of the representation were legally sustainable given the lack of reasoning by the Reviewing Officer and the predetermined nature of the remarks

2. Whether the initiation of a Departmental Enquiry can be the sole basis for an adverse APAR grading without following the procedural requirement of providing an opportunity for improvement

DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2009, which mandates transparency and objectivity in APARs and requires the competent authority to decide representations based on material evidence within 30 days

State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Misra (1997), which established that the objective of ACRs is to allow public servants to improve and requires reporting officers to share information with the officer before recording adverse remarks

Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013), affirming that every entry must be communicated to ensure natural justice

Union of India v. G.R. Meghwal (2022), which emphasizes that rejection of representations against ACRs must contain valid reasons

The Tribunal observed that the APAR was written with a "predetermined mind," as the RO’s remarks were based entirely on the initiation of a DE without specifying dates or details, treating the applicant as guilty before the conclusion of proceedings

The Reviewing Officer failed to apply his mind, merely initialing the form without recording any reasons for accepting the RO’s assessment, which the Tribunal termed a "stereotyped copy" that violated settled law

The court noted that the applicant had previously secured "Outstanding" and "Very Good" ratings, and the sudden drop to "Below Average" was unsupported by any record of prior warnings or guidance to improve efficiency

Consequently, the failure to follow the 2009 DoPT OM and the lack of independent appraisal by the RevO rendered the process arbitrary and procedurally flawed

The court held that the impugned APAR shall not be taken into consideration for any future service conditions or career prospects of the applicant

No order was made as to costs