Judicial directions to decide representations on merits override procedural restrictions against multiple administrative appeals.

The applicant, a Senior Auditor in the office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, consistently maintained "Very Good" Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) gradings from 2011 until 2019-20

However, for the period 2020-21, her grading was downgraded to "Good" (marks below 6.0), which adversely affected her entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme

This downgrade was effected without any prior warning or communication regarding performance deficiencies

The applicant’s initial representation was rejected on 19.08.2022

Subsequent appeals and memorials were declined by the respondents on the grounds that only one representation is permissible under the 30.01.1978 Office Memorandum and that memorials to the President are not available to employees below the rank of Under Secretary

In a previous round of litigation (O.A. 350/244/2024), the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider a comprehensive representation from the applicant on its merits

The respondents issued a fresh speaking order on 24.10.2024, which again rejected the claim primarily on procedural and technical grounds regarding maintainability

1. Whether the sudden downgrade of an APAR grading from "Very Good" to "Good" without prior notice or communication of deficiencies is legally sustainable?

2. Whether the impugned speaking order dated 24.10.2024 complied with the Tribunal’s earlier direction to adjudicate the applicant's grievance on its merits rather than on technical/procedural grounds?

The court primarily relied on the principles of natural justice and the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008), which established that any entry (even if not "adverse") that affects promotional prospects must be communicated to the employee

The court further applied the ratio from Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2009), holding that non-communication of entries with civil consequences violates natural justice

Additionally, the court cited Union of India v. G.R. Meghwal (2022), which posits that unexplained deviations from consistent past gradings by the same authorities may be deemed arbitrary

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had a consistent track record of "Very Good" ratings both before and after the 2020-21 period

The court found that the respondents failed to provide any prior warning regarding performance deficiencies before the downgrade

Critically, the Tribunal noted that its previous order in O.A. 350/244/2024 had expressly directed a "comprehensive" consideration of the representation on merits; however, the respondents instead reiterated procedural objections regarding the number of permissible representations and the applicant's rank

The Tribunal reasoned that once a judicial direction is issued to consider a matter on merits, the authorities cannot non-suit the applicant based on internal technicalities or OMs that limit the number of representations

The impugned order was found to be "cryptic" and lacking an independent application of mind regarding the COVID-19 pandemic's impact or the applicant’s substantive record

It held that the respondents failed to fulfill the spirit of previous judicial directions by rejecting the claim on technicalities rather than evaluating the merits of the APAR downgrade

The matter was remanded to the competent authority to consider the applicant's representation dated 12.08.2024 afresh on its merits, specifically accounting for her consistent past record and judicial precedents

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks, while the Tribunal clarified it expressed no opinion on the final outcome of the grading itself