UNION OF INDIA Vs. D.B. ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 24/12/2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') in O.A. No.4250/2013. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has, by relying on its earlier decision dtd. 9/1/2007 in OA No.673/2004 titled Shri A.P. Srivastava vs. Union of India & Ors., allowed the claim of the respondent/applicant by holding that her Annual Performance Assessment Report (hereinafter referred to as 'APAR') for the period between 1/4/2009 to 28/2/2010, having not been reviewed by any reviewing officer, was liable to be treated as non est.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has, while allowing the O.A of the respondent, erred in relying on its earlier decision in Shri A.P. Srivastava (Supra), without appreciating the fact that the factual matrix of the two cases was different. Unlike in the present case, where the respondent's aforesaid APAR written by the reporting officer was considered by a Referral Board, in Shri A.P. Srivastava (Supra), the APAR of the concerned employee was not examined/considered by any Referral Board. He submits that as per rules, the Referral Board is the final authority for considering representations against APARs and therefore, once the Referral Board had considered the representation of the respondent against the aforesaid APAR, it could not be said that the APAR, having written only by the reporting officer, was non-est.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Behra, learned senior counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. He submits that taking into account that this APAR, wherein the respondent was, for the first time, downgraded to 'Good' as against her 'Outstanding' or 'Very Good' gradings during her entire service career, was written only by a reporting officer, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying on its earlier decision in Shri A.P. Srivastava (Supra) to hold the same as non- est. This decision was not only unsuccessfully assailed before the Apex Court but was also followed by the learned Tribunal in Ashok Kumar Aneja vs. Union of India, O.A. No. 24/2007 and Mrs. Swati S. Patil vs. Union of India, O.A. 2033/2010. Once it is an admitted position that this APAR of the respondent was not considered by any reviewing authority as is mandated under the rules, the mere consideration of the respondent's representation against the said APAR by the Referral Board would not cure the infirmity in the APAR. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.