Representations against adverse APAR entries must be decided through reasoned and speaking orders within stipulated timelines.

The applicant, an employee of the Northern Railway, challenged the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2021-2022, wherein he was graded as "Average" by the Reporting Officer.

The applicant contended that his previous performance records were consistently graded as "Excellent" or "Very Good" and that no memo, censure, or warning was issued during the assessment period to justify a downgrade.

The Reporting Officer marked his performance as "not satisfactory" on 04.02.2022 without providing a supporting explanation.

Consequently, the applicant submitted a formal representation dated 11.03.2022 to the authorities.

Upon the respondents' failure to decide on said representation, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the impugned grading and for directions toward an unbiased evaluation.

Whether the respondents are required to dispose of the applicant’s pending representation against the "Average" APAR grading through a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated timeframe.

The court applied the principles of administrative justice and procedural fairness, which require that representations against adverse or downgraded entries in an employee's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) must be considered and decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

This ensures that the administrative action is not arbitrary and adheres to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had already preferred a representation on 11.03.2022 regarding the contested APAR grading, which remained pending before the respondents.

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel narrowed the prayer, stating the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents were directed to decide the pending representation in a time-bound manner.

The respondents' counsel expressed no objection to this limited prayer.

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the grading or the allegations of bias, determined that the appropriate administrative remedy at this stage was to compel the respondents to perform their duty of adjudicating the representation.

It directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s representation dated 11.03.2022 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of accordingly.