COL VINOD DAHIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) The submission of Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the action which has been assailed primarily relates to the validity of the e-APAR in respect of the petitioner pertaining to the period from October 1, 2018 to March 13, 2019. According to him, the same has been recorded / passed in an arbitrary manner in contravention to the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training ('DOP&T', for short), Govt. of India and against the procedures laid down in the All India Service Performance Appraisal Report (Rules), 2007.

(3.) In substance, he submits that the petitioner has filled the ACR form for the aforesaid period well in time. As the Initiating Officer ('IO', for short) was not in place, the next High Level Officer, i.e., the Reviewing Officer ('RO', for short) has initiated the ACR as IO, as per the guidelines of the DOP&T. Having initiated the ACR, as IO, the RO could not have reviewed the same. The review in this situation is required to be carried out by an officer who is above the RO, that is the Accepting Officer (AO).