Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer

Today,  Delhi High Court, in the case of Mritunjay Kumar v. Union of India and Ors (W.P.(C) 8908/2022), quashed adverse remarks and the downgrade of the petitioner’s Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) from "Very Good" to "Good" for the period from April 1, 2018, to October 29, 2018. The petitioner, serving as a Second in Command (2-I/C) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), had challenged the downgrade, alleging it stemmed from bias and personal vendetta by his Reporting Officer. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the adverse remarks lacked objectivity and were likely motivated by bias, thus setting aside the APAR.

"Inconsistent APAR Grading and Remarks Cannot Stand Legal Scrutiny," Holds Court

The petitioner, Mritunjay Kumar, joined CRPF as an Assistant Commandant in 2005 and was promoted to Deputy Commandant in 2012. The dispute arose when Kumar was serving in the 22nd Battalion, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, under the command of Respondent No. 4 (Commandant Vishnu Gautam). Kumar refused to participate in alleged illegal activities—such as planting weapons on individuals to frame them as Naxalites—ordered by the Commandant. Following this, Kumar faced multiple warnings and a sudden downgrade in his APAR for the short period between April and October 2018, despite consistently receiving high grades in previous years.

Kumar made several complaints to the Director General (DG) and Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of CRPF about the Commandant’s alleged bias, but the issue persisted. Upon receiving an APAR rating of "Good" instead of his usual "Very Good" or "Outstanding," Kumar’s representation to expunge the adverse remarks was rejected, prompting him to file the present writ petition.

Bias and Vindictiveness in APAR Recording: Kumar argued that his APAR downgrade was driven by bias due to his refusal to cooperate in illegal activities under the Commandant. He pointed out a consistent pattern of "Very Good" and "Outstanding" ratings in his previous and subsequent APARs, and the sudden downgrade for a short period, which supported his claims of personal vendetta.

The court found merit in these arguments, noting that Kumar's grading suddenly dropped to "Good" only for the contested period, with no valid or objective reason provided. The court observed:

"The cumulative pattern of prior ‘Very Good’/‘Outstanding’ APARs and a sudden downgrade in a short period supported reasonable apprehension of bias." [Paras 41, 43]

Inconsistencies in APAR Evaluation: The court noted discrepancies between the positive remarks in certain sections of the APAR and the adverse comments in others. For instance, Kumar’s integrity and welfare work were rated positively in Part 3 of the APAR, while conflicting adverse remarks were included in the pen-picture in Part 5.

"It was the duty of the Reporting Officer to ensure that all remarks and grading awarded are in consonance. The inconsistent grading and remarks endorsed clearly show a lack of due diligence and objectivity." [Para 39]

Procedural Compliance for APAR Recording: Kumar also raised the issue of procedural irregularity, contending that the Reporting Officer had not supervised him for the mandatory three months as required by the CRPF’s Standing Orders. The court, while agreeing with the respondents that the Reporting Officer had supervised Kumar for sufficient time after leave adjustments, concluded that the grading lacked the necessary objectivity and fairness.

"The APAR was recorded without due diligence and in violation of the principles of fairness." [Paras 24, 30, 39]

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the adverse remarks and downgradation in the petitioner’s APAR for the period in question. The court further directed that the respondents shall not rely on the impugned APAR for any future assessments or promotions of the petitioner.

"There was a lack of objectivity on the part of Respondent No. 4 while recording the impugned APAR, and bias cannot be ruled out." [Para 43]

The judgment emphasizes that APARs must be recorded with due diligence and objectivity to ensure fairness in employee assessments. In the present case, the court found the APAR to be inconsistent, biased, and recorded in a negligent manner, affecting the petitioner’s career progression unjustly.

Date of Decision: September 24, 2024

Mritunjay Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.