Dr. Ashok Khemka vs State Of Haryana

Applicant is an Indian Administrative Service Officer of 1991 Batch of Haryana Cadre, posted as Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, on the date of filing the O.A. The present application is against the remarks and grading recorded by the Accepting Authority in Section V of the Performance Appraisal Report. The PAR of IAS officers is appraised as per the provision contained in The All India Service (PAR) Rules, 2007.

Applicant's argument is, that the time frame for appraisal by the various authorities is fixed, and this has not been followed in the applicant's case.  The Accepting Authority recorded its remarks in Section V, after 184 days, whereas the time allotted was 30 days.

Appraisal by the Accepting Authority was made  on 31.12.2017, whereas the time-frame was 15.09.2017. He relies upon Schedule 2 Appendix 1 to the AIS (PAR) Rules, 2007. On disclosure of PAR remarks to the applicant, he made a statutory representation under Rule 9(2), produced as Annexure A-2. The Reporting Authority forwarded his case to the Reviewing Authority under Rule 9(5). After considering the representation of the applicant and observation made by the Reporting Authority, the Reviewing Authority forwarded its view to the Accepting Authority under Rule 9(6) on 12.02.2018. The applicant argues that the Accepting Authority did not consider the representation of the applicant within the time-frame of 15 days of the receipt of the view of the Reviewing Authority, and hence the view taken by and the grading recorded by the Reviewing Authority be taken as final. The relief prayed in this O.A. is to issue directions to the respondents to expunge the remarks and the overall grade recorded by the Accepting Authority in "Section V - Acceptance" of the PAR for the period 08.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and restore the over-all grade of 9.92, as per appraisal done by the Reviewing Authority.

The respondents in their written statement submit that under Rule 9 (7B) of PAR Rules, 2007, time limit of fifteen days has been prescribed for taking decision by the Accepting Authority, being the competent authority, but this rule has not barred the Accepting Authority to decide the representation beyond the prescribed time limit. It is further submitted that Rule 7(1) of PAR Rules 2007 has not barred the Accepting Authority to record remarks beyond the prescribed limit. The general guidelines issued for filling up PAR form of IAS officers equivalent to the level of the applicant, as laid down in para 9.4 is that if a PAR relating to a financial year is not recorded by the 31st  December of the year in which  the  financial  year  ended,  no  remarks  shall  be  recorded thereafter and  the  officer may  be  assessed  on  the  basis  of  the overall record and self assessment for the year, if he has submitted his self-assessment on time.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused their written statement. They argued what is narrated in their respective pleadings.

While the PAR Rules cited by the applicant have been perused, our attention is drawn to Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules, 2007 and para 9.4 of the general guidelines for filling up the PAR form for IAS officers, which are reproduced as under:-

"Rule 5 (1)

Performance appraisal reports:- (1) A performance appraisal report assessing the performance, character, conduct and qualities of every member of the Service shall be written for each financial year or as may be specified by the Government in the Schedule 2.

Provided that a performance appraisal report may not be written in such cases as may be specified by the Central Government, by general or special order.

Provided further that if a PAR relating to a financial year is not recorded by the 31st December of the year in which the financial year ended, no remarks shall be recorded thereafter. And the officer may be assessed on the basis of the overall record and self assessment for the year, if he has submitted his self-assessment on time.

Para 9.4 of the general guidelines

If a PAR relating to a financial year is not recorded by the 31st of December of the year in which the financial year ended, no remarks shall be recorded thereafter. The member of Service will be assessed based on the overall record and self-assessment of the year concerned, if he had given his self-assessment in time and the Reporting authority, Reviewing authority and the Accepting Authority have not completed the PAR according to the time schedule given in para 9.1.

A co-joint reading of the aforementioned rule and guideline makes it clear that, they provide a window, by not having a barring clause on the Accepting Authority recording remarks beyond the prescribed time limit, and have actually set a date of 31st December of the year in which the financial year ended as the time limit for recording PAR. Thus, the limit fixed for writing the appraisal report by various authorities, in the Schedule 2, is the minimum or ideal period within which the remarks are required to be made. Further, if the PAR is not recorded by 31st December of the year in which the financial year ended, no remarks shall be recorded thereafter. We note that the for the financial year 2016-2017, the period under report challenged by the applicant, 31.12.2017 would be the ultimate time limit for recording PAR and the outer limit of time, beyond which no remarks can be made in the appraisal report.

A perusal of Annexure A-1 reflects that the appraisal report of the applicant by the Accepting Authority was written on 31. 12.2017, and was written well within the limit prescribed under the relevant Rule 5(1) and guideline 9.4. Applicant appears to have overlooked the applicability of these two rules while presenting his case to the Bench for expunging the remarks and over-all grade recorded by the Accepting Authority.

In view of above, we find no merit in the case, which is dismissed as such.