MANOJ DHYANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, presently working as a Deputy Inspector General of Police (in short 'DIG') in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short 'CRPF'), seeks quashing of adverse remarks/grading in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (in short 'APAR') for the period between 20/5/2020 and 31/3/2021. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dtd. 9/6/2022, whereby his representation against the adverse remarks/grading in the aforesaid APAR has been rejected. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction for the respondents to upgrade his aforesaid APAR from 'Good' to 'Outstanding', with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition, as emerging from the record, are that the petitioner joined the CRPF as an Assistant Commandant on 4/7/1989. In the year 1995, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant following which he was promoted as Second-in-Command on 14/6/2002. The petitioner was, thereafter, promoted as Commandant on 27/5/2005. Finally, he was promoted as DIG on 17/8/2019. During his long tenure of 35 years with the CRPF, he has served in various parts of Punjab, Jharkhand (Naxalite area), Chhattisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir and his Battalion was twice adjudged as the Best Operational Battalion. In all his APARs, except the impugned APAR, the petitioner has always been adjudged as 'Outstanding' or 'Very Good'.

(3.) From September, 2018 to August, 2021, the petitioner, in his capacity as DIG, Recruitment, Directorate General, CRPF, worked in close co-ordination with the Ministry of Home Affairs (in short 'MHA'), Staff Selection Commission (in short 'SSC') as well as other Central Armed Police Forces. The respondent no. 3 took over charge as Inspector General (IG) (Estt.) in June, 2020 and the reporting period of the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 was about nine months. For the first six months till December, 2020, no issue regarding the petitioner's performance was ever raised by the respondent no. 3, however from end of December, 2020 to March, 2021 i.e. in a span of three months, the respondent no. 3 started seeking explanations from him by issuing advisories on non-professional issues, which the petitioner claims was with an intent to downgrade his APAR.