Allowed¶20

Sh. Sandeep Dhaka v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC3 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/11606/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APAR downgradation set aside; Annual Performance Appraisal Report; Pen Picture versus numerical grading mismatch; Reporting Officer; Reviewing Officer mere agreement; adverse remarks require specific instances; DoPT Office Memorandum 14.05.2009; representation rejected 05.03.2018 by respondent no.5; CRPF CoBRA anti-naxal officer; natural justice in APAR; career progression; Sukhdeo (1996) 5 SCC 103; Yamuna Shanker Mishra (1997) 4 SCC 7; Sanjeev Dhundia 2020 SCC Online Del 1842; Delhi High Court 2025; W.P.(C) 11606/2019.

What did the court decide?

Impugned APAR (assessment period 21.06.2015 to 31.03.2016) set aside; respondents directed not to consider it for any future assessment of the petitioner; no order as to costs. ¶20

Sh. Sandeep Dhaka Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned APAR (assessment period 21.06.2015 to 31.03.2016) set aside; respondents directed not to consider it for any future assessment of the petitioner; no order as to costs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Impugned APAR for the assessment period 21.06.2015 to 31.03.2016, grading the petitioner “Good”, can be sustained where its numerical gradings do not match the Pen Picture and other assessments recorded by the Reporting Officer. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The numerical gradings granted to the petitioner do not match with the Pen Picture or the other assessments of the petitioner made by the Reporting Officer.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

No cases of warning or other displeasure communicated to the petitioner during the relevant period, which could warrant downgradation of his APAR, were brought to the Court's notice.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Reviewing Officer merely stated his agreement with the Reporting Officer's assessment and comments, undermining the very purpose for which a Reviewing Officer records an APAR.ratio¶14
In recording an APAR, there should be definite correlation between the Pen Picture of the officer and the marks allotted to him in various attributes.ratio¶9
As no specific instances explaining or warranting the downgradation were given by the respondents, even in their counter affidavit (let alone in the APAR or otherwise), the Impugned APAR cannot be sustained.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 11606/2019 — Sandeep Dhaka v. Union of India and Ors. (High Court of Delhi, Navin Chawla, J., with Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.; pronounced 03.02.2025): Allowed. The Court set aside the petitioner's CRPF Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the assessment period 21.06.2015 to 31.03.2016, graded “Good”, and directed that the respondents shall not consider it for any kind of future assessment of the petitioner. Grounds: (i) the numerical gradings did not match the Pen Picture and other assessments recorded by the Reporting Officer, who had endorsed the petitioner's self-appraisal and noted his honesty, welfare-orientation towards subordinates and planning competence; (ii) the Reviewing Officer merely agreed with the Reporting Officer, undermining the purpose of review; (iii) no warnings or displeasure during the relevant period were shown, and no specific instances — even in the respondents' counter affidavit — warranted the downgradation. The petitioner's non-completion of Army training, pre-dating the assessment period, could not have influenced the grading. The Court relied on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2009 and on Sukhdeo (1996) 5 SCC 103, Yamuna Shanker Mishra (1997) 4 SCC 7 and Sanjeev Dhundia (2020 SCC Online Del 1842). No order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 03.02.2025

¶3

W.P.(C) 11606/2019 SH. SANDEEP DHAKA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Pushpendra Kr. Dhaka, Mr.Abhishek Kumar & Mr.Harsh Dhaka, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Adv.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶8

J U D G M E N T

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (“APAR”) for the assessment period 21.06.2015 to 31.03.2016, which grades the petitioner as “Good”. The petitioner further challenges the Order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the respondent no.5 rejecting his representation against the Impugned APAR.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force (“CRPF”) on 23.03.2013, and was posted at 206^th , Commando Battalions for Resolute Action (in short, “CoBRA”), which is involved in dealing with naxalites.

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

¶14

Page 1 of 12

¶15

The petitioner states that barring the Impugned APAR, he has always been assessed as “Very Good” or “Outstanding”. He submits that even during the period in question, the petitioner had carried out, with his team, more than 50 anti-naxalites operations successfully without any casualty and had apprehended most wanted naxalites on whom the government had declared awards. The petitioner alleges that even in the Impugned APAR, the Reporting Officer himself states that the petitioner has executed the work responsibly and is a hardworking officer, however, the petitioner has been downgraded which shall have an adverse effect on his career progression. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2009 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (“DoPT”), submits that APAR has an important role in service matters and, therefore, must be written with utmost care. He submits that as in the present case, the Pen Picture and the numerical grading recorded in the APAR do not match, the same are liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukhdeo vs. The Commissioner Amravati Division, (1996) 5 SCC 103; State of UP vs. Yamuna Shanker Mishra and Another , (1997) 4 SCC 7 and the Judgment of this Court in Sanjeev Dhundia vs. Union Of India & Ors., 2020 SCC Online Del 1842. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the only possible reason for downgrading the petitioner appears

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

¶18

Page 2 of 12

¶19

to be that he did not complete the army training. He submits that the same could not have been taken into consideration while writing the Impugned APAR, as this was for a period prior to the period of the Impugned APAR.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Reporting Officer and the Accepting Officer graded the petitioner after examining and overlooking his performance during the period covered by the Impugned APAR. She submits that the APAR for a particular period cannot be doubted only because of the APAR recorded for the previous or the subsequent period. She submits that the respondent no.5 before rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the Impugned APAR had called for the comments from the Reporting and the Accepting Officer and having considered the same, found no reason to disagree with their assessment of the performance of the petitioner. She submits that, therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶22

At the outset, we would note that an APAR performs a very vital function for not only the assessment of an officer for his career progression, but also to inform him of his shortcomings and areas where he needs to improve. The aim of writing APARs is to have an objective assessment of an individual‟s professional and personal qualities, competence,

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

¶25

Page 3 of 12

¶26

personality, integrity, and employability, and to provide the individual appropriate feedback and guidance for correcting his deficiencies, and to improve his performance to serve the interest of enhancing efficiency of the Force. The assessment report of a Government employee is a privileged document, which involves a tremendous responsibility on the part of the Reporting and the Reviewing Authorities, and therefore, it is essential that the APAR is filled with due care and attention, and that the said task is not casually undertaken.

¶27

While writing the APAR, the Reporting and the Reviewing Authorities are required to make an analysis with respect to assessment of work output, personal attributes, and functional competency of an individual, for which they are required to grade them on a scale of „1‟ to „10‟, and different weightage is provided for the assessment of the abovementioned sections. The Reporting and the Reviewing Authorities should ensure that the grading is balanced and not recklessly made in an irresponsible manner.

¶28

The assessment of the performance also requires a Pen Picture of the individual with regard to the performance, conduct, behavior, and potential of such individual, keeping in mind the distinction between what is a fact and what is an opinion. Further, there should be definite correlation between the Pen Picture of the officer in question and the marks allotted to him in various attributes. The Pen Picture should not be sketchy and too brief, rather, it should amply describe the

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

¶31

Page 4 of 12

¶32

qualities and shortcomings of an officer, so that one is able to make out the personality, potential, character, attitude, intelligence, industry, aptitude etc., of the same. The Pen Picture should include the reasons for awarding lower than average marks by the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities. In addition, the Reporting Authority and the Reviewing Authority are required to refer to various inspection reports prepared periodically while endorsing their remarks on the APAR of an officer.

¶33

In the present case, the Impugned APAR records the agreement of the Reporting Officer to the Self Appraisal made by the petitioner. It also states that the petitioner is honest and his integrity is beyond doubt; has a positive attitude towards the welfare of his subordinates and shows interest in their living, comfort, convenience/welfare and sports; is fully competent to detect the misconducts of the subordinates and is fully qualified in planning the training of his subordinates. However, in spite of the above attributes, the Impugned APAR gives him average marks towards the assessment of work output, personal attributes and functional competency. Not only this, the Pen Picture given by the Reporting Officer also does not match the numerical assessment of the petitioner. We reproduce the relevant portions of the Impugned APAR as under:

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

¶36

Page 5 of 12

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

¶39

Page 6 of 12

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

¶42

Page 7 of 12

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

¶45

Page 8 of 12

¶46

The Reviewing Officer simply agrees with the assessment of the Reporting Officer and, in fact, states that the Reporting Officer has given a „correct Pen Picture‟.

¶47

The above would clearly show that the numerical gradings granted to the petitioner do not match with the Pen Picture or the other assessments of the petitioner made by the Reporting Officer.

¶48

We have not been shown any cases of warning or other displeasure, etc., being communicated to the petitioner during the relevant period which may warrant the downgradation of his APAR.

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

¶51

Page 9 of 12

¶52

The respondents along with the counter affidavit have also annexed the para-wise comments submitted by the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer to the respondent no.5 basis whereof the representation against the Impugned APAR was decided and rejected by the respondent no.5. Apart from giving a vague comment that the assessment has been made basis the work performed by the petitioner, there are no particular instances which would have warranted the downgradation of the Impugned APAR of the petitioner. The Reviewing Officer, in fact, again simply states his agreement with the comments of the Reporting Officer, thereby undermining the very purpose for which a Reviewing Officer is required for recording an APAR.

¶53

In this regard, we may note the observations made by this Court in Sanjeev Dhundia (supra):

¶54

“19. …Writing in the APAR that the petitioner had not shown initiative or had to be prodded or had to be nudged into action, without quoting specific instances, which were also followed up and substantiated by written advisories for improvement, and relying on letters sent in the early part of the assessment year, which in any case do not qualify as advisories, to make such adverse remarks in the APAR, leaving no opportunity for the petitioner to improve his performance, militates against principles of natural justice and the objectives of recording the APARs no efforts seem to have been made by Respondent 4 to find out the causes why the performance of the petitioner who was an „outstanding‟

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

¶57

Page 10 of 12

¶58

officer had in that year fallen so steeply, and to thereafter, make efforts to remove the issues interfering with excellence in performance of his duties. Moreover, when no written advisories were issued to the petitioner to improve his performance, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had continued with unsatisfactory performance despite cautioning and opportunities to improve, to substantiate the adverse remarks recorded by Respondent 4.”

¶59

To the same effect are the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukhdeo (supra) and Yamuna Shanker Mishra (supra).

¶60

In the present case, as we find that the numerical grading given to the petitioner and downgradation of his APAR to “Good” do not match with the Pen Picture recorded by the Reporting Officer himself, and that there are no specific instances explained by the respondents even in their counter affidavit, let alone in the APAR or otherwise, which would warrant a downgradation of the grading of the petitioner, the Impugned APAR cannot be sustained.

¶61

As far as the petitioner not completing his training in the Army is concerned, the same being prior to the period of the Impugned APAR could also not have influenced the respondents to downgrade the petitioner for the relevant period. 19. In view of the above, the Impugned APAR for the period 21.06.2015 to 31.03.2016 is set aside. It is made clear that the respondents shall not consider the Impugned APAR for any kind of assessment related to the petitioner in the future.

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63