APAR downgrading based on mistaken factual premises by a reviewing authority is legally unsustainable.

The Applicant, a Specialist/Cardiologist Grade-I (Senior Scale) and Head of Department at ESIC Model Hospital, challenged the downgrading of her Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the period 2019-2020.

The Reporting Officer had originally awarded the Applicant a numerical grade of 7.44, which the Reviewing Officer (Deputy Medical Commissioner) subsequently downgraded to 5.07.

The Reviewing Officer justified this downgrade by recording that the Applicant pursued an observership at AIIMS, New Delhi, without following "due procedure" or obtaining his recommendation.

The Applicant contended that she had obtained formal approval from the competent authority (the Medical Commissioner) via letters dated 28.06.2019 and 29.07.2019, and had properly handed over her charge before joining the training.

1. Whether the Reviewing Officer's downgrade of the Applicant’s APAR was based on factually incorrect premises regarding procedural non-compliance.

2. Whether the assessment provided by the Reviewing Officer should be excluded from the Applicant's record for the purposes of career progression.

The Tribunal applied the administrative law principle that performance assessments (APARs) must be based on factual accuracy and objective criteria.

An assessment predicated on a "mistaken fact" or an error of record is unsustainable.

The Tribunal further recognized that a formal approval granted by a superior "competent authority" (Medical Commissioner) validates the officer's actions, regardless of the individual recommendation of a Reviewing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the Reviewing Officer’s remarks—stating the Applicant had not followed procedure—were factually erroneous.

Evidence presented showed that the Applicant’s application for observership at AIIMS was routed through the proper hierarchy and was explicitly approved by the Medical Commissioner, who authorized her relief from duty.

The Applicant also produced a certificate of transfer of charge, proving she had followed protocol.

The Respondents failed to dispute these facts.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Reviewing Officer’s assessment was based on a "mistaken fact," and since this erroneous observation was the catalyst for the downgrade, the lower grading of 5.07 was legally untenable.

It held that the Applicant’s final numerical grading for the 2019-2020 APAR must be restored to 7.44 as originally recorded by the Reporting Officer.

The Tribunal further directed the Respondents to exclude the Reviewing Officer's assessment from the Applicant's APAR for the purpose of considering her promotions or non-functional grades.

The Respondents were ordered to comply with these directions within six weeks.