Non-communication of adverse APAR remarks and downgrading without prior notice invalidates denial of financial upgradation.

The applicant, an employee of BSNL, was granted financial upgradation from E-1 to E-2 in 2007.

While his juniors were granted the next upgradation (E-2 to E-3) in 2013, the applicant’s claim was ignored due to adverse remarks in his APARs for 2008-09 and 2009-10.

The Reviewing Authority had downgraded the applicant's grading from "Very Good" to "Good" and recorded remarks such as "no potential" and "poor technical knowledge," despite the Reporting Authority’s positive report.

The applicant's representations were returned/rejected as time-barred.

BSNL contended that the applicant had signed a certificate "agreeing and accepting" the remarks at the time.

1. Whether the respondents failed to follow the mandate of communicating the full APAR as required by judicial precedents.

2. Whether the adverse remarks recorded by the Reviewing Authority were legally sustainable in the absence of prior advisory or documentation of deficiency.

3. Whether the signatures obtained on a printed proforma certificate ("agreeing and accepting" remarks) constitute a valid waiver of the right to represent.

The court primarily applied the principles from Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008), which established that all APAR entries (adverse or otherwise) must be communicated to the employee to ensure transparency.

It further relied on State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra, holding that adverse remarks must be based on objective data and preceded by an opportunity for the employee to improve through prior advisory or warnings.

The court also referenced U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain regarding the illegality of arbitrary downgrading of ACRs without recorded reasons.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to communicate the complete APARs for the years in question, which prevented the applicant from filing a timely representation.

Regarding the "agreement" certificate signed by the applicant, the Tribunal ruled that a printed proforma signature cannot substitute for the legal requirement of formal communication and the right to fair representation.

Critically, the Tribunal observed that the Reviewing Authority’s remarks were subjective opinions not supported by any prior warnings, memos, or objective evidence of poor performance during the reporting period.

The Tribunal noted that since the Reviewing Authority failed to substantiate the disagreement with the Reporting Authority's positive assessment, the remarks appeared to be influenced by personal bias rather than professional appraisal.

The adverse remarks in the APARs for 2008-09 and 2009-10 were ordered to be expunged.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant's claim for financial upgradation from E-2 to E-3 effective from December 2012 (the date his juniors were upgraded) and, if found eligible, grant all consequential notional benefits within 12 weeks.