Employee's Performance Assessment Must Be Limited To Specified Year, Incidents Beyond Not Ground To Upgrade/ Degrade: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the assessment of an employee for a particular year must be based solely on their performance during that year, and incidents beyond the period covered by the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) cannot be used to either downgrade or upgrade an employee's rating.

This observation was made by a division bench comprising Justices Shalinder Kaur And Rekha Palli in a case filed by a petitioner currently serving as a Second-in-Command (2-IC) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash two orders that rejected his representations for upgrading his APAR grading and expunging adverse remarks for the period from June 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016.

The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade his grading to "Outstanding," as awarded by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, and to expunge the adverse remarks endorsed by the Accepting Authority. Additionally, the petitioner requested consideration for the Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) with effect from January 1, 2020, and all related benefits.

The petitioner had been graded as "Outstanding" by both his Reporting and Reviewing Officers for the relevant period, with a box grading of 8.0. However, the Accepting Authority downgraded the grading to "Good," with a box grading of 5.5, based on observations made during an inspection of the Battalion in July 2016—an event that occurred after the assessment period.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of the SSB, which was ultimately rejected, prompting him to file a writ petition. The petitioner argued that the adverse remarks were based on an incident that occurred outside the APAR reporting period, in violation of the guidelines provided in paragraph 4(i) of the Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the respondent. The Court noted that this contention had not been denied by the respondents.

The Court noted that the petitioner argued that the adverse remarks endorsed by the Accepting Authority, which led to his downgrading, were based solely on the observations made during an inspection in July 2016, which was beyond the period of reporting.

The Court highlighted, “This averment, we may note, has not at all been denied by the respondents, who have sought to contend that even if the observations pertain to a period beyond the assessment period, the same cannot be ignored as they truly reflect the views of the Accepting Authority, which ought to be given precedence.”

The Court determined that the key issue in this case was whether remarks made by Reporting Authorities in an APAR, based solely on incidents beyond the reporting period, could be sustained.

The Court further explained that the answer to this question lay in the Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Government. Referring to paragraph 4(i) of the OM, the Court emphasized that the Reporting Authorities were required to assess the performance of an officer only during the period under report.

[The paragraph 4(i) of the OM says:

“4. In the light of the above, following points may be taken into consideration while writing APARs. (i) An APAR should be written with due care after assessing the performance of the officer reported upon during the period under report. The report should be based on objective assessment of the work quality of the officer. The officer recording the remarks must realize the importance of entries. made by him and write them with greatest possible care. Needless to mention that slightest negligence on the part of the Reporting Officer may lead to grave injustice to the officer reported upon as it may have the effect of adverse bearing on the promotional prospect of an officer.”]

The Court observed, “what clearly emerges is that the Reporting Authorities are required to assess the performance of an officer only during the period under report. In the present case, when it is the common case of the parties that the adverse remarks endorsed by the Accepting Authority are based on an inspection conducted in July, 2016, it is evident that the same are violative of paragraph 4(i) of the OM. Even otherwise, we are inclined to agree with the petitioner that the assessment for a particular year must be based on the performance of the employee in that particular year. Incidents, which are beyond the period covered under the APAR cannot be a ground to either downgrade or upgrade an employee.”

Accordingly, the Court held that it had no option but to set aside the impugned remarks endorsed by the Accepting Authority. It reasoned that since the Accepting Authority had downgraded the box grading from '8,' as awarded by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, to '5.5' based on those remarks, this grading also had to be quashed. The Court thus allowed the writ petition and set aside the entire assessment made by the Accepting Authority.

However, the Court clarified that it would not interfere with the assessment made by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers in the petitioner's APAR for the period between June 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim for the grant of NFSG (Non-Functional Selection Grade) from January 1, 2020, within twelve weeks, by disregarding the assessment made by the Accepting Authority for the same APAR period.

The Court also ordered that all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner, as a result of this decision, be released within four weeks thereafter.

Case Title: Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1004

Click Here To Read Judgement