APAR appeals must be decided by a reasoned, speaking order.

The applicant challenged the rejection of his representation against his APAR for 2022–23.

He alleged that the Reviewing Officer had downgraded his grading from “Very Good” to “Good” without reasons or an opportunity to respond, and that his representation was rejected on 6 September 2023 solely as time-barred.

The applicant had also filed an appeal before respondent No. 5 on 19 September 2023.

During the hearing, he accepted that the matter could be disposed of by directing the competent authority to decide that appeal; the respondents agreed to consider and decide it in accordance with law.

Whether respondent No. 5 should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s appeal dated 19 September 2023 against the rejection of his APAR representation.

Whether the Tribunal should express any view on the merits of the APAR challenge at this stage.

The applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal relied on the need to meet the principles of natural justice by requiring the competent authority to decide the appeal through a reasoned and speaking order.

It cited no precedent and stated that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute.

The parties agreed that the appeal dated 19 September 2023 would be considered and decided in accordance with law.

In light of that agreement, and to meet the requirements of natural justice, the Tribunal directed respondent No. 5 or the competent authority to issue a reasoned and speaking decision.

It left the APAR dispute and the challenge to the limitation-based rejection for the authority to determine, without being influenced by the Tribunal’s order.

It made no finding on the merits, disposed of the OA at the admission stage, and made no order as to costs.