Repeated representations cannot revive a time-barred challenge to adverse ACRs.

The applicant, a Delhi Police constable deputed to the CBI from 1994 to 1998, challenged adverse ACRs recorded during his CBI deputation for 1995–1998 and separate ACRs recorded by Delhi Police for 1999–2000.

He stated that the CBI supplied copies of the deputation-period ACRs on 15.11.2002; he had sought copies in 2001 and made further representations in 2003, 2004, 2014 and 2020–2021.

The 1999–2000 ACRs had been communicated to him in 2000, but he first represented against them in June 2021.

The competent authorities rejected his requests in July 2021, and he sought to have the ACRs upgraded and relied, among other matters, on the procedure for recording integrity-related doubts under the relevant Government instructions.

1. Whether the challenge to the 1999–2000 ACRs and the order dated 06.07.2021 was within limitation

2. Whether the challenge to the CBI-period ACRs for 1995–1998 and the order dated 12.07.2021 was within limitation

3. Whether the applicant could rely on Nitesh Srivastava v. Union of India and para. 5.2 of the DoPT O.M. dated 20.05.1972

4. What relief, if any, could be granted

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 requires an application to be filed within the prescribed period following the relevant final order or, where applicable, the expiry of six months after an undecided representation; delay may be condoned under Section 21(3) upon sufficient cause.

Under S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, limitation may run from the decision on a statutory appeal or representation, but repeated representations not provided by law do not extend time; a memorial to the head of the establishment does not affect limitation.

C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar and Union of India v. Chaman Rana establish that a belated representation or its rejection does not revive a stale claim or create a fresh cause of action.

Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India require ACR entries to be communicated within a reasonable period, while Chaman Rana addresses the limitation consequences of claims based on non-communication.

Under Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the continuing-wrong exception is limited and generally does not save stale claims concerning promotion or fitness-dependent benefits.

Para. 5.2 of the DoPT O.M. dated 20.05.1972 prescribes a separate secret note where doubts arise about an officer’s integrity; Nitesh Srivastava permits intervention where an APAR assessment or its consideration contravenes a specific legal provision or instruction.

The ACRs for 1999–2000 had been communicated in 2000, yet the applicant did not challenge them until 2021; the Tribunal held that the ensuing rejection as time-barred did not revive the claim.

Although the CBI-period ACRs were supplied only in 2002, the applicant knew of them then, made representations in 2003 and 2004, and was informed in 2005 that they prevented grant of the higher ACP scale.

The Tribunal found that the limitation period had expired well before the OA was filed in 2021; neither repeated representations nor the continuing effect of the ACRs on financial benefits converted the claim into a continuing wrong.

The non-communication principles in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh did not overcome that delay, and Nitesh Srivastava did not assist because it involved a timely challenge.

The Tribunal therefore did not examine whether the integrity-related procedure had been followed on the merits.

The dismissal did not preclude the applicant from pursuing any MACP financial-upgradation claim otherwise available to him, which the respondents were directed to consider on its own merits and in accordance with law; the Tribunal expressed no view on whether the 1995–2000 ACRs were reckonable for that purpose.