Court Expunges Biased APAR Grading, Directs Re-evaluation of Promotion Prospects with Full Benefits
In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under Justice Sandeep Moudgil, has ruled in favor of Roshan Sharma, an ITBP officer, by setting aside the adverse remarks and grading in his Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the year 2022-2023. The court held that the APAR grading of 3.5 was arbitrary, biased, and inconsistent with Sharma's otherwise excellent service record.
The case, Roshan Sharma v. Union of India, highlighted concerns over fairness and objectivity in recording adverse remarks. The court emphasized that adverse entries in an APAR must be accompanied by prior written intimation and specific instances justifying such remarks. It was found that the adverse remarks in Sharma's APAR were not supported by any specific deficiencies or instances, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The court further directed the Union of India to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider Sharma's case for promotion to the post of Commandant, ignoring the expunged APAR. The court ordered that Sharma's promotion should be reconsidered with all consequential benefits, including seniority and arrears of pay, from the date his immediate junior was promoted.
Justice Moudgil's judgment also underscored the importance of treating similarly placed officers alike, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that an unfairly recorded grading should not be allowed to adversely impact an officer's promotion prospects, especially in a disciplined force where rank carries enduring honor.
In light of this ruling, the decision rejecting Sharma's representation against the adverse APAR has been quashed. The court has mandated the completion of the review DPC within a month and directed that any promotion, if found fit, be granted with interest on arrears.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Adverse remarks in APAR - Requirement of fairness and objectivity in recording adverse remarks - Single below-benchmark grading inconsistent with otherwise excellent record cannot be allowed to depress promotion prospects.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, DoP&T OM dated 14.05.2009, MHA UO dated 02.09.2014.
Roshan Sharma v. Union of India, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2844631
