Dismissed¶44

Dev Raj v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC19 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2373/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APAR; Annual Performance Appraisal Report; adverse remarks; expunction; APAR downgrading 'Below Good' 'Doubtful Integrity'; PE / departmental proceedings pending; DG's Displeasure CRPF; Show Cause Notice 09.08.2024; Directorate Order No. C.IV-66/2023-Vig. DA-9 dated 11.10.2024; Accepting Authority upgrade to 'Good' 26.12.2024; upgradation 'Good' to 'Very Good' refused; unchallenged punishment bars interference with grading; CRPF officer Dev Raj vs Union of India; W.P.(C) 2373/2026; decided 19.02.2026; V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

During the relevant reporting period the petitioner was under process/examination for various allegations, and the Reviewing Authority recorded against column no. 2 (integrity) that the integrity of the officer was doubtful. ¶36

Dev Raj Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 19.02.2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 2373/2026

¶5

DEV RAJ

¶6

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sonam D. Mehta, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

¶9

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ranjeet Pandey, Adv., SPC, Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer, Insp Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶12

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )

¶13

CM APPL. 11570/2026 (Exemption)

¶14

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The application is disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) 2373/2026

¶17

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶18

“a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or direction quashing & setting aside the impugned order dated 01/12/2025 vide which petitioner’s representation against the expunction of adverse remarks from petitioner’s APAR for the

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

W.P. (C) 2373/2026

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.02.2026 16:59:01

¶23

period of 01/04/2023 to 04/09/2023 was rejected; b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or direction quashing & setting aside the downgraded APAR of the petitioner for the period of 01/04/2023 to 04/09/2023;

¶24

c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to upgrade the downgraded APAR of the petitioner for the period of 01/04/2023 to 04/09/2023 from the level of “Good” to “Very Good”

¶25

In effect, the petitioner is challenging the expunction of his adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period of 01.04.2023 to 04.09.2023. The impugned order passed by the Director General (DG), CRPF dated 01.12.2025 on the application made by the petitioner with respect to the APARs reads as under:

¶26

“2. The issues raised vide your application dated 21/10/2025 have been examined in Directorate. In this regard, it is conveyed that while assessing your APAR for the period 01/04/2023 to 04/09/2023 (year 2023-24), the Reporting Officer assessed your APAR as Very Good'. However, as a PE was under process/examination for various allegations, the Reviewing Officer downgraded/assessed your APAR as 'Below Good' with 'Doubtful Integrity' and endorsed adverse remarks in your said APAR. In the meantime, the PE was finalized and the allegations levelled against you for procurement of ration at higher rates and assigning the duties of Battalion Adjutant to a junior officer in violation of the instructions, was substantiated. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 09/08/2024 proposing 'DG Displeasure' was issued to you. Your representation dated 02/09/2024 in response to Show Cause Notice was examined by the competent authority and after taking a lenient view, DG's Displeasure' was issued to you vide this Directorate Order No. C.IV-66/2023-Vig. DA-9 dated 11/10/2024. Further, your online representation dated 07/01/2025 for expunction of adverse remarks/upgradation of APAR grading recorded in your APAR for the period 01/04/2023 to 04/09/2023 (year 2023-24), was considered and rejected being devoid of merit by DG, CRPF vide this

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

W.P. (C) 2373/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.02.2026 16:59:01

¶31

Directorate Order of even No. dated 11/09/2025.

¶32

3. With regard to the terming your integrity as 'Doubtful' arro downgrading your APAR as 'Below Good' by the Reviewing Officer, it is informed that these remarks were statement of facts, which were recorded by the Reviewing Officer in your said APAR, based on your work, conduct and performance during the period under report. Further, the allegations levelled against you were substantiated and the PE & integrity issue referred by the Reviewing Officer were settled with award of 'DG's Displeasure' to you, the Accepting Authority on 26/12/2024 had upgraded your said APAR as 'Good' and specifically endorsed his remarks as under:-

¶33

'PE and integrity issue referred by the Reviewing Officer has been settled with award of DG's Displeasure'. I grade him 'Good'

¶34

4 From the above, there seems no justification to accede your request as there is no double jeopardy involved in this case. Accordingly, the competent authority has found no merit in your request and the same is disposed of.

¶35

5. This has the approval of DG, CRPF.”

¶36

A perusal of the order dated 01.12.2025 would reveal that during the period the petitioner was under process/examination for various allegations. In fact, in the relevant extracts of the APAR, Reviewing Authority has against column no.2 i.e. in respect of integrity, stated- not agreeing, as the integrity of the officer is doubtful.

¶37

On submitting the application to the Director General (DG), the said grading in the APAR has been converted as ‘DG’s displeasure’ which resulted in the APAR being graded for the relevant period as ‘good’. Given that the reason for which the DG’s displeasure was issued has concededly been not challenged by the petitioner in a Court of law, it has to be held that the grading in APAR as ‘good’ cannot be interfered.

¶38