Delhi High Court Upholds BSF's Adverse Remarks in Officer's Performance Appraisal

Court rules that absence of detailed reasons in rejecting representation against adverse remarks does not violate fairness in administrative law.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging adverse remarks in the performance appraisal of a Border Security Force (BSF) officer, emphasizing the subjective nature of such assessments and the limited role of courts in reviewing them. The judgment, delivered by Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav, addressed the legality of the adverse remarks in the Six Monthly Performance Appraisal Reports (SMPAR) and Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of Suresh Sankhla, a BSF officer who had served at sensitive locations including the Indo-Bangladesh border and Kashmir.

The petitioner, Suresh Sankhla, sought the court's intervention to quash the adverse remarks made by the Reviewing Authority, which downgraded his performance grades despite favorable assessments by his Reporting Authority. Sankhla contended that the adverse remarks led to the loss of two increments and were issued without any interaction or fair assessment by the Reviewing Authority.

The court, however, upheld the BSF's decision, citing the absence of any statutory rule requiring the recording of detailed reasons for rejecting such representations. Referring to the Supreme Court's precedent in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, the bench observed that the competent authority is not legally bound to provide reasons for rejecting a representation against adverse remarks unless mandated by a specific rule.

The judgment highlighted the principles of administrative law, stating that the performance appraisal of government servants involves subjective satisfaction of the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities. The court reiterated that it does not act as an appellate body over administrative assessments unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or malice.

Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had been given opportunities to improve and was informed of the adverse remarks, aligning with the principles laid down in State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra. Despite the adverse remarks, the petitioner's promotion was not affected, which the court considered a mitigating factor in the administrative process.

The ruling underscores the court's deference to administrative authorities in performance assessments, provided they act fairly and justly, even in the absence of recorded reasons. The decision affirms the limited scope of judicial review in administrative matters, particularly in subjective performance evaluations.

The writ petition was consequently dismissed, leaving the BSF's assessment and subsequent actions intact.

Bottom Line:

Administrative Law - The Reviewing Authority and Reporting Authority are entrusted with subjective satisfaction in performance assessment of government servants - Courts do not sit as an appellate authority in such cases. In the absence of a statutory rule or administrative provision requiring reasons for rejecting representations against adverse remarks, authorities are not obligated to record reasons but must act in a fair and just manner.

Statutory provision(s): None specified in the judgment as being violated or directly applicable.

Suresh Sankhla v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2792346