Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Delhi High Court Exposes Bias and Orders Expungement of Adverse Remarks in APAR

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has shed light on biased actions and ordered the expungement of adverse remarks in an Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR). The judgment, delivered on July 18, 2023, emphasized the importance of fair and unbiased assessments, while warning against prejudiced actions by reporting officers.

The court scrutinized the case of an officer who had received adverse remarks in his APAR, allegedly based on unserved memos. The bench found that the memos had not been communicated to the officer, denying him the opportunity to explain or improve his conduct. It was revealed that the memos had been created post facto, solely to justify the adverse report. The court firmly condemned such practices, stating, "This practice of subsequent justifications for APAR has to be deprecated in no uncertain words."

Highlighting the lack of objectivity in the assessment, the court observed that the officer had an illustrious career with meritorious awards and outstanding gradings before and after the impugned period. The adverse remarks, therefore, seemed unjustified and suggested bias on the part of the reporting officer.

Justice S. Sharma, delivering the judgment, remarked, "The conduct of the reporting officer reeks of vindictiveness and malice towards the petitioner." While refraining from recommending action against the reporting officer, who had already been dismissed from service, the court warned that no one is above the law and that biased actions would not be tolerated.

The court ordered the expungement of the adverse remarks and directed the authorities to conduct a review DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) to consider the officer's case for promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant. The officer would be granted promotion from the date his immediate juniors were promoted, along with all consequential benefits.

This landmark judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of fair assessments and adherence to natural justice principles in the evaluation of personnel. It underlines the duty of reporting officers to act with objectivity and integrity while considering the career progression of their subordinates.

Delhi High court stated, "While making such remarks, specific instances from where such inferences were drawn must be mentioned and conveyed so that the concerned officer would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake."

The judgment referred to several relevant cases, including State of U.P. v Yamuna Shanker Mishra, Shri Tarsem Kumar, and Sukhdeo vs. Commissioner, Amaravati Division, among others, which further supported the court's findings.

 Date of Decision: July 18, 2023

MANUDEV DAHIYA    vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DG ITBP       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Manudev-Vs-UOI-18July23-Del.-HC.pdf"]               

Latest Legal News