A CRPF Senior Medical Officer's representation against adverse APAR remarks for 2014-15 was rejected as time-barred. The court found the rejecting authority failed to consider Standing Order 56/2001 and the DG CRPF guidelines on contradictory gradings, set aside the rejection letter and remanded for reconsideration within 90 days.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16647 of 2018
======================================================
Dr. Ajay Kumar S/o Shree Harihar Roy, Resident of C/50-A, H.No. 972/6, 2nd Floor, Road No.-1, Vijay Nagar, Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna, presently posted as SMO Composite Hospital Muzaffarpur attach to Group Centre Mokama District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate Mr. Vitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-05-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16647 of 2018 dt.13-05-2024 2/7
HQ CRPF by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Further prayer is for quashing the adverse remarks in APAR for the year 2014-15.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16647 of 2018 dt.13-05-2024 3/7
statutory representation before the authority concerned i.e., the DIG (Medical), CH, Muzaffarpur, CRPF, (Bihar), but his representation was rejected treating as time barred.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16647 of 2018 dt.13-05-2024 4/7
was directed to the authorities to follow the guidelines. The said letter he has annexed as Annexure-6 to the supplementary counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Union of India has filed counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit only point has been taken that representation has been filed by the petitioner with delay.
“2.3. According to
instructions on ACRs, only adverse remarks recorded in the ACR, if any, are to be communicated to the Government servant. The grading in the ACR, even if “Average” (which may not make him
Patna High Court CWJC No.16647 of 2018 dt.13-05-2024 5/7
eligible to achieve the prescribed bench mark for promotion) need not be communicated. However, in the past, officials who were graded as “Average” in their ACR, were advised suitably (without disclosing grading) to improve their performance. The intention behind this was that the Govt. servant should be advised to improve his performance in the interest of his career.”
As well as the operative part of Annexure-6 letter
issued from Directorate General, CRPF, (MHA) dated 28th of June, 2008, states as follows:-
“The guidelines for initiation/review/maintenance of APAR have been laid down in S.O.4/2015. The procedure for communication of APAR has been laid down in para 13 of S.O.4/2015:-
1. It has been observed
that in some cases the Reporting/Reviewing Officer have endorsed adverse remarks in some columns but have given overall grading “Very Good”. Such remarks are contradictory and may create confusion in the mind of the concerned Officer and he may not be able to comprehend whether the remarks in APAR may be
Patna High Court CWJC No.16647 of 2018 dt.13-05-2024 6/7
construed as adverse or not. The overall grading endorsed in the APAR, should be in consonance with remarks given in the relevant column/Pan Picture by them. The Reporting/Reviewing authorities should be requested to go through the guidelines on completion of APAR as laid down in DoP&T OM No.21011/1/2005-Estt.(A)(Pt-1) dated 23.07.2009 and S.O.4/2015.
2. The competent authority has desired that while forwarding the APAR to the Officer, it may be clearly mentioned in the covering letter that there are adverse remarks/below bench mark grading in his APAR.
3. The bench mark for MACP is “Very Good” as per provisions contained in DoP&T OM No. F.35034/3/2015-Estt(D) dated
28.09.2016. Therefore any grading below Very Good may be construed as below bench mark grading. The same may also be mentioned in the covering letter.
4. I have been desired by the competent authority to request you to follow the above instructions while forwarding APAR of all officers.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.16647 of 2018 dt.13-05-2024 7/7
crystal clear that the authority, who has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 dated 15.02.2018, has not applied his mind with regard to the above said provisions of law mentioned above. In that backdrop, the letter dated 15.02.2018 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to pass order completely in accordance with the Rules mentioned above within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 15.05.2024 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether adverse remarks in the petitioner's APAR 2014-15 were validly treated despite an overall 'Very Good' grading and non-communication per Standing Order 56/2001.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation as time-barred was justified.
Dr. Ajay Kumar
The Union of India through Secretary, Home Ministry of Home Affairs
Director General, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
Inspector General of Police (Personnel), CRPF
D.I.G. (Establishment), Directorate, CRPF
Anshuman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
