Tribunals cannot substitute their opinion for performance assessments conducted per prescribed procedures and natural justice.

The applicant, a Senior Instructor (TRD) in Eastern Railway, challenged the "AVERAGE" grading in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period 2019-2020

Following a previous Tribunal order in O.A./350/2098/2021, the applicant submitted a representation on 07.04.2022 seeking an upgradation to "VERY GOOD" or "OUTSTANDING"

This representation was rejected by the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRD) via a Speaking Order dated 17.06.2022

The applicant contended that the grading was casual, violated Master Circular No. 28, and was unfairly influenced by disciplinary proceedings that were subsequently quashed or dropped

1. Whether the Speaking Order dated 17.06.2022 was cryptic and failed to address the issues raised in the applicant's representation in accordance with Master Circular No. 28

2. Whether the Tribunal can interfere with the subjective assessment of performance made by reporting and reviewing authorities

The court primarily applied the instructions contained in the Railway Board's Master Circular No. 28 dated 17.06.1991, which governs the recording and review of APARs for railway servants

It further relied on the administrative law principle that judicial bodies should not sit in judgment over the merits of a performance assessment made by competent authorities provided the assessment is objective and follows prescribed procedural instructions

Additionally, the court applied the Principle of Natural Justice regarding the right to a reasoned disposal of representations

The Tribunal examined the impugned Speaking Order and found that the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer had meticulously addressed the applicant's points, including the specific remarks in the APAR and the relevance of previous disciplinary actions

The record indicated that while the Reporting Officer had suggested an upgrade to "Good," the Reviewing and Accepting Officers provided justifications to maintain the "Average" grading

The Tribunal reasoned that the assessment process strictly adhered to Master Circular No. 28

It emphasized that the scope of judicial review is limited to the decision-making process; since the applicant was given an opportunity to represent his case and the authorities passed a reasoned order, there was no procedural impropriety or violation of natural justice

The Tribunal declined to substitute its own judgment for that of the reporting and reviewing authorities

The O.A. was dismissed, and the "AVERAGE" grading was upheld