The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition challenging an arbitrary APAR grading. The court held that the petitioner failed to disclose a chronic medical condition impacting duty performance, justifying the grading recorded by the department.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
M K SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Ankita Patnaik and Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, CGSC along with Sh. Arvind Sharma, DC/BSF.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R % 07.01.2016
chronic piles and had underwent treatment. He relies upon the appraisal by the Chief Medical Officer of the BSF itself, conducted on 11.10.2011, which is to the following effect:
Dated 11.10.2011
MEDICAL BRANCH UNIT HOSPITAL 87 BN BSF
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
On perusal of the medical documents produced and on medical examination of the officer concerned it is found that he has been suffering from bleeding Piles (Haemorrhoids) for the last three years duration intermittently.
As per documents available he had been examined by the Surgical Specialist of District Hospital, Malda dated 10th Oct, 2011 and treated accordingly. He had been diagnosed as “FISSURE IN ANO WITH PERIANAL INFECTION” and is presently taking symptomatic treatment under Out-door patient department basis. As per prescription of the treating doctor he is being managed conservatively as surgical intervention may not be required urgently as condition is not very grievous. However, if condition does not improve after medications he may require to under Surgical intervention in due course of time.
Submitted for your kind perusal and necessary action pse.
Sd/11/X/2011 (Dr. S.K. Singh) CMO, 87 Bn BSF”
existence of the acute piles condition known and though his self-appraisal was agreed upon, the Reporting Officer had, besides the instance of the petitioner’s refusal to lead the unit, also indicated his casual approach. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the entire record of the petitioner and stated that there were other instances where he displayed a casual approach. He particularly highlighted upon the lack of supervision over the process of destruction of cryptic records. Apparently, the petitioner along with ASI(Ciph) Manojit Devnath were detailed to ensure destruction of records. The petitioner merely signed off without actually ensuring that the documents were destroyed. These were brought to light subsequently and the petitioner given a warning.
disclose it ultimately led to a situation where the BSF had to perhaps deploy someone else at the eleventh hour. Coupled with this, his indifference in overseeing an important operation of destruction of crypto records was also commented upon adversely. That too has not been disputed. In these circumstances, this Court cannot take upon itself the role of an administrator and say that the omissions were not so serious or were too minor to be overlooked or say that the petitioner was justified in complaining that the APAR gradings were arbitrary.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 07, 2016 ‘ajk’
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's APAR grading of 4.63 was arbitrary given his undisclosed medical condition.
Whether the court can correct omissions in the petitioner's performance appraisal records under writ jurisdiction.
M K Singh
Union of India
S. Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
