Court Can’t Interfere With Grading Unless Reason Given By Reviewing Officer Is Completely Foreign To His Duties Or Arbitrary: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court partly allowed a Writ Petition of an employee of the Central Soil & Mineral Research Station (CSMRS) against the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The Delhi High Court held that the Court cannot interfere with the grading unless the reason given by the Reviewing Officer is completely foreign to the duties to be performed by him or is arbitrary.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by an employee of the Central Soil & Mineral Research Station (CSMRS), an office under the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation (MOWR), against the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed, “Once there is a reason given by the reviewing officer for the grading given by him, the Court cannot interfere with the grading unless the reason is completely foreign to the duties to be performed by the officer or is markedly arbitrary. The reasons adduced by the reviewing officer for the year 2007-2008, for grading the petitioner as “good”, instead of “very good” cannot be said to suffer from any patent infirmity.”
The Bench said that in the case of adverse entries regarding the integrity of the officer, the Court would not interfere, if it is satisfied that the assessment by the reporting officer is honest.
Advocate K.L. Manhas represented the Petitioner while Senior Panel Counsel (SPC) Shoumendu Mukherji represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner was an employee of CSMRS and this case was related to his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The copies of the said ACRs were provided to him in May 2009. The Petitioner represented against the said ACRs in June 2009, July 2009, and August 2011 and the representations were rejected in August 2011 and December 2011.
The Petitioner instituted seven Original Applications (OAs), challenging his ACRs as well as the rejection of his representations. He sought quashing of adverse remarks entered in the ACRs. The said OAs were first dismissed by CAT and this was challenged before the High Court via Writ Petition. The Court set aside the impugned Order and remanded the OAs to CAT for consideration afresh. However, the CAT once again dismissed all the OAs. Hence, the Petitioner approached the High Court again.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “… where, in one ACR, there are starkly inconsistent and mutually irreconciliable remarks, the Court would hold that the adverse remarks were deliberately entered in order to prejudice the officer.”
The Court further reiterated that absolute objectivity and complete absence of bias or prejudice, are indispensable in the reporting officer as well as reviewing officer.
“It may not be possible to cite specific instances, or refer to evidence while making the entries. The remarks could not, in such circumstances, be characterized as vague, or be vulnerable to challenge on that score”, it added.
The Court was of the opinion that for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, no case for interference exists as the entries in the Petitioner’s ACRs for these two years reflect a markedly lower standard of performance vis-à-vis the earlier years.
“The italicized entries for the relevant year, in the table annexed as Annexure-1 to this judgment clearly support the overall grading of “average” granted by the reporting officer. The reviewing officer has concurred with the said grading. The grading is in no way less than the grading granted to the petitioner in the previous year. As such, the grading per se does not call for interference”, it said.
The Court observed that while it is true that the reviewing officer has downgraded the grading of “very good” granted to the Petitioner by the reporting officer, to “good”, he has adduced reasons for doing so.
“He has stated that, as an IT professional, the petitioner should have developed some software for day to day use of office by then. … Inasmuch as the reduction of the overall grading as given by the reviewing officer, vis-à-vis the reporting officer, was only going down from “very good” to “good”, there was no requirement, in law, for the petitioner to be granted a prior opportunity or to put on notice before the grading was given”, it also remarked.
The Court said that equally, as, vis-a-vis the overall grading obtained by him in previous year, i.e., the 2006-2007, the Petitioner’s grading had increased from “average” to “good” it was a step up, thereby obviating any necessity of placing the Petitioner on notice before entering the “good” remark.
“The reporting officer and the reviewing officer have both graded the petitioner as “good” for the year 2008-2009. The grading is in sync with the remarks contained against the various entries in the ACRs. There is no downgrading vis-à-vis the average grading obtained by the petitioner in the previous year. No cause, therefore, exists to interfere”, it observed.
The Court held that while the Petitioner would be entitled to be graded “very good” for the year 2001-2002 and “good” for the year 2004-2005, the gradings for the remaining years do not call for interference.
“Resultantly, while holding that the petitioner would be entitled to be graded “very good” in 2001-2002 and “good” in 2004-2005, the gradings awarded in his ACRs for the remaining periods in dispute are upheld”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Aabi Binju v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1314-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate K.L. Manhas
Respondents: SPC Shoumendu Mukherji, Advocates Megha Sharma, Arya Jha, and Aniruddha Ghosh.
