Satheesha R. vs Union of India and Others

Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.8.2014 and the Office Memorandum dated 9.12.2014 (Annexures ''W'' and ''Z'', respectively). By the former order, the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit ISAC Bangalore, refused to interfere with the APAR for the years 2011 and 2012. By the latter order, the petitioner''s representation against the APAR for the year 2013 was rejected by the Assistant Commandant/ADM CISF Unit ISAC Bangalore.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (''CISF'' for short) on the said post on 11.9.1991. At present, he is serving under the Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Master Control Facility, Hassan, Karnataka.

On 23.3.2013, while he was serving under it, the office of the Commandant, CISF Unit, ISAC, Vimanapura, Bangalore - the 5th respondent, disclosed the APARs for the years 2011 and 2012 to the petitioner. Comprising the period of 14.1.2011 to 13.12.2011 and 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012, in the two APARs, the petitioner had been rated as "Good" instead of "Outstanding". Since he was not satisfied with the rating of "Good", as he was under the impression that he should have been assessed and graded as "Outstanding", therefore, on 29.3.2013, he submitted a representation to the 5th respondent and prayed to consider his performance as "Outstanding" instead of "Good". Since the said representation did not solicit any response, on 4.9.2013, the petitioner submitted a second representation before the 4th respondent requesting that the entry be improved to "Outstanding" instead of being retained merely as "good" in the APAR for the years 2011 and 2012. However, the said second representation was rejected by respondent No. 4 by order dated 8.1.2014, ostensibly on the ground that the representation was delayed by 5 months and 11 days.

On 9.12.2013, respondent No. 5 informed the petitioner with regard to his APAR for the year 2013. According to the APAR, the petitioner''s performance for the year 2013 was graded as "average" instead of "Outstanding". According to the petitioner, despite his honest and continued service to the Department, his performance has unnecessarily been graded as "average" instead of "Outstanding". Therefore, aggrieved by the said entry, on 18.2.2014, the petitioner filed a representation before respondent No. 5. By letter dated 22.2.2014 he was directed to send a copy of the representation addressed to the Commandant/CISF. Therefore, on 22.2.2014, the petitioner re-submitted his representation to the Commandant. By order dated 22.8.2014, the Senior Commandant refused to upgrade the entry from "good" to "Outstanding" for the years 2011 and 2012. Similarly, by order dated 9.12.2013, the Assistant Commandant refused to change the entry of "average" for the year 2013. Hence, this petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that a schedule has been prescribed for intimating the entries made in the APARs. However, the said schedule has not been adhered to by the respondents. Secondly, other constables working with him have not performed so well as he has worked during these years, yet they have been graded better than him while recording the entries in APARs. Therefore, both the impugned orders deserve to be interfered with.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records submitted by him.

Even if a schedule for communicating the entries under the APARs has been prescribed, but the said schedule is not a mandatory one. It is merely directory in nature. Therefore, even if the APARs have been communicated beyond the period prescribed by the schedule, it would not vitiate the grading given in the APARs.

A bare perusal of the order dated 22.8.2014 clearly reveals that the Senior Commandant, has observed that the plea that the petitioner had not availed medical rest is not correct because the individual has availed 13 days of commuted leave in the month of December 2011, and 03 days in the month of February 2012. Moreover, the petitioner was found absent from IDSN Unit Line on 6.4.2011 and was awarded 01 hour extra duty for 02 days. Similarly, on 18.12.2012 he was found sleeping with Mobile Phone at IDSN gate and awarded 4 days extra duty for 4 hours duration. Despite these facts he was graded as "good" for the years 2011 and 2012. Thus, no valid point was submitted by the petitioner for upgrading the entry from "good" to "Outstanding". Obviously, the Senior Commandant has given valid reasons for not upgrading the entry from "good" to "Outstanding".

The assessment of an employee is the right of an employer. Unless and until, it is established before the Court, that the assessment was malafide, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the assessment made by the employer. In the present case, the petitioner is not pleaded in any malafide against the superior officers.

Although it is true that the order dated 9.12.2013, merely states that "the representation made by the petitioner against the APAR for the year 2013 has been considered and rejected", but the said rejection order is not required to be a reasoned one. Therefore, this Court finds any reason to interfere with the order dated 9.12.2013.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.