Kerala High Court
Bangaru Ramesh Singampalli vs The Director General Central ... on 23 May, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12096 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
BANGARU RAMESH SINGAMPALLI
CONSTABLE GENERAL DUTY, CISF NO.014503504,
CISF UNIT VSP, VISAKHAPATNAM, UKKUNAGARAM,
KURMANAPALEM, ANDHRA PRADESH-530008.
BY ADV SRI.T.SANJAY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
CISF HEAD QUARTERS, 13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110003.
2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (SOUTH SECTOR)
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
CHENNAI, PIN-600009.
3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (DOS ZONE)
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, ANTARIKSH
BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN-560094.
4 THE SENIOR COMMANDANT
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
CISF UNIT VSSC THUMBA, PIN-695022.
5 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110003.
BY ADV SHRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C)No.12096 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Constable in the Central
Industrial Security Force (CISF). He challenges Exts.P1
and P4 Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) for
the calendar year 2014-15 during which period he was
working at VSSC Thumba, Trivandrum.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel
for the respondents.
3. In Ext.P1 APAR, the petitioner is given an
overall numerical grading of "3" and in Ext.P4, later
modified under Ext.P6, the overall numerical grading is
"4". The petitioner contends that the APARs were not
properly prepared. There has been violation of the
guidelines issued by the Government (Ext.P7) with regard
to preparation of APARs. Ext.P7 requires the authorities
to reflect the pen picture of the officer in a box in
APAR. However, Exts.P1 and P4 do not contain the same.
Therefore, Exts.P1 and P4 are liable to be quashed and
fresh APARs are directed to be prepared, it is
contended.
4. The respondents, on the other hand, would
contend that, APARs of the petitioner were prepared with
due consideration of the performance of the officer. The
officer was awarded petty punishments, the details of
which are provided in the counter affidavit, during the
period, for breach of discipline. The said details had
been provided in the orders on the appeals preferred by
the petitioner, namely, Exts.P3 and P5. The reporting
officer has made the assessment of the work output,
personal attributes and functional competency. In
Exts.P2 and P5 representations submitted by him as
against Ext.P1 and P4 APARs, there was no objection with
regard to the absence of pen picture in the APAR. The
APARs were prepared based on the overall performance of
the petitioner. At any rate, there is delay in raising
the challenge and solely on that ground the writ
petition has to be dismissed, it is contended.
5. Exts.P1 and P4 are prepared in the format of
Annual Performance Assessment Report of CISF. It is
noted that, all the relevant factors to be indicated
therein have been reported by the reporting officer. The
format contains a column "General remarks/special
qualities" which has also been reported. The APAR form
reflects "attitude to work, sense of responsibility and
maintenance of discipline, communication skills and
inter-personal relations, temperament (ability to retain
poise at the time of pressure at work), courage
(physical/moral), accomplishment of exceptional
work/unforeseen tasks performed, coordination ability,
appearance and personality, general awareness regarding
turnout, parade, drill and handling of weapon and
attitude towards women and weaker sections." The
reporting officer has expressed his assessment on the
qualities of the petitioner. It has been further
assessed by the reviewing officer. General remarks have
also been indicated. Though, the pen picture of the
officer concerned is not expressed otherwise in Exts.P1
and P4, the details and sufficient descriptions as
required in the format, as mentioned supra, have been
given therein.
6. The respondents have pointed out that, there
were 9 physical petty punishments imposed on the
petitioner during the period, for breach of discipline.
The details have been provided by them. Even Ext.P3
order in the appeal/representation by the petitioner
they have been indicated. The petitioner does not
dispute the awarding of such punishments. The fact that
such petty punishments are not reflected in the APARs
would in fact be the advantage to the petitioner-
officer. Though as against Exts.P1 and P4, the
petitioner preferred representations/appeal as Exts.P2
and P5, it is seen that no complaint is raised with
regard to non-inclusion of pen picture in the APAR.
7. On the appeals/representations submitted by
the petitioner, Exts.P3 and P6 orders were passed.
However, no specific challenge is raised regarding the
same, nor any relief is sought. The orders on Exts.P2
and P5 appeals/representations were passed in the year
2015 and 2016. However, the writ petition is filed only
on 05.04.2018. The delay in raising the challenge is
also a factor to be taken into consideration. The
concerned reporting officer and reviewing officer are
stated to be either not available or deployed elsewhere.
It may not be possible for any other officer to give pen
picture with regard to the petitioner.
8. In the light of the above discussions, the
writ petition is bound to fail.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
yd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12096/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S APAR FOR THE
YEAR 2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 06.04.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.15015/CISF/VSSC/DOC/APAR/2014/4118
DATED 23.06.2015 ISSUED BY CISF
COMMANDANT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S APAR FOR THE
YEAR 2015.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 22.01.2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.15015/CISF/VSSC/DOC/APAR/2014/4118
DATED 11.04.2016 ISSUED BY CISF
COMMANDANT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.NO.21011/1/2005-
ESTT.(A)(PT-II) DATED 23.07.2009 OF
DOPT.
4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDERLY ROOM REGISTER FOR
THE YEAR 2014, WHEREIN THE PETTY
PUNISHMENTS WERE AWARDED TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDERLY ROOM REGISTER FOR
THE YEAR 2015.
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1963 DATED
11.04.2016.
EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
27.03.2016 & CORRIGENDUM DATED
01.04.2016.
EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISIONING AUTHORITY
ORDER NO.9895 DATED 16.12.2016.
EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE-1 OF DOPT
O.M.NO.21011/1/2005-ESTT.(A)(PT-II)
DATED 23.07.2009.
EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 17.03.2001
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF
APPOINTMENT IN CISF.
EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE CISF HEAD QUARTER, NEW
DELHI VIDE LETTER NO.E-15011/
1/APAR/2009/CS-114 DATED 19.03.2014.
EXHIBIT R4(I) TRUE COPIES OF COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE
CONCERNED REPORTING/REVIEWING OFFICERS.
EXHIBIT R4(J) TRUE COPIES OF THESE GENERAL DIARY
RECORDS.
