Superior Authority To Whom Representation Is Made Against Adverse Remarks Is Under No Obligation To Record Reasons For Its Decision: Delhi HC Dismisses BSF Officer’s Petition

The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking the setting aside of the impugned order of the Directorate General Border Security Force (BSF), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the order of the Special Director General (Eastern Command) BSF.

The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held, “No rule has been pointed out to this Court by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner wherein the Approving Authority i.e., the authority to whom representation is made against adverse remarks given by the Reviewing Authority, must give reasons while rejecting the representation. The Superior Authority i.e., Special Director General, BSF, while considering the representation of a Government Servant, in the absence of any rule mandating to record reasons, is under no obligation to record or communicate reasons for its decision.”

Senior Advocate Tamali Wad represented the Petitioner while Senior Panel Counsel Akshay Amritanshu represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner had joined the Border Security Force (BSF) as an Assistant Commandant (Group A) in November, 2012 and belonged to the 2012 Batch of Officers. It was stated that prior to joining the BSF, the Petitioner had also served in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for a period of three years to the post of Sub-Inspector. After completion of his basic training, the Petitioner was allotted to the unit of 73 Battalion BSF where he assumed charge as a Company Commander. In the year 2015, the Petitioner, gave a representation to the Special Director General, Eastern Command, BSF, Kolkata against the assessment given by the Reviewing Authority on the basis of a copy of the assessment reports supplied to the Petitioner. The two representations made by the Petitioner were rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the performance assessment of the persons concerned is subjective to the satisfaction of the Reporting Authority and the Reviewing Authority throughout the year. Since these evaluations are subjective in nature, Courts do not sit in the armchair of either the Reporting Authority or the Reviewing Authority to take a decision as to how the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Authorities.

It was noticed by the Bench that in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR), the Reviewing Authority had made similar observations as were made in the Six Monthly Performance Appraisal Reports (SMPAR). “The object of writing confidential reports is to give opportunities to a Public Servant to improve excellence. Undoubtedly, the Officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the Subordinate Officer”, it held.

The Bench noted that after adverse remarks in SMPAR, the Petitioner was informed about adverse remarks against which a representation was given by the Petitioner, which was rejected by the Special Director General, BSF. The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, (1991) wherein it was held that it was not incumbent on the Special Director General, BSF, to indicate reasons for his decision to the Government Servant.

With the aforesaid observations, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Suresh Sankhla v. Union of India (Neutral Citation:2025: DHC: 9046-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Tamali Wad, Advocates Varyam Pandey, Palak Garg

Respondent: Senior Panel Counsel Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Drishti Saraf, Drishti Rawal, Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal

Click here to read/download Order