recommendations of the second senior most officer, the ASC for upgradation of his APAR ought to have been accepted especially when they were in tune with the grading given by the Reporting Officer as well. She submits that when the comments of three out of the four officers who had endorsed the APAR were available, there was no requirement to seek comments of the DG, who was not at all aware of the petitioner’s performance during the relevant period. Without prejudice to her aforesaid plea, she submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order whereunder, the DG has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for up-gradation in a most mechanical manner, without giving any reasons for not accepting the recommendations of the ASC, the senior most serving officer who had endorsed his impugned APAR. She contends that as a consequence of this downgraded APAR, the petitioner despite having an otherwise outstanding service record has also been deprived of the benefits under the MACP scheme. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to upgrade the impugned APAR of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents seeks dismissal of the petition by urging that the recommendations made by the ASC, who was undoubtedly the second senior most officer to endorse the petitioner’s impugned APAR, could not be treated as final. The recommendations of the ASC, he contends, were subject to the comments of the Accepting Officer. However, since the Accepting Officer had by then already superannuated from service, the matter was rightly placed before the DG, who did not agree with the recommendations for up-gradation made by the ASC. The DG, he submits had, after due consideration of the comments made by all the three Assessing Officers come to a conclusion that the petitioner’s prayer for up-
