Manipur High Court
Shri Munna Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India on 17 August, 2022
[1]
SHOUGRA Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
KPAM DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH
Date: 2022.08.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
DA SINGH 16:02:37 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019
Shri Munna Kumar Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Awadhesh
Kumar Singh, permanent resident of 15-A, Kashyap Kutir, Nitibagh,
Jagdeo Path, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Rukunpura, and District Patna,
Bihar, Pin-800013. Presently residing at Group Centre, CRPF,
Langjing, P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur - 795113.
...Petitioner
-Versus -
1. The Union of India, through its Secretary (Home), Govt. of India,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Central Reserve Police Force, Govt. of
India, Block No.-1, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -
110003.
3. Shri Vikram Sehgal, I.G.P., Central Reserve Police Force, Govt. of
India, Block No.-1, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-
110003.
4. Shri S.C. Parasar, DIG (Adm), NEZ HQr, Amerigog, 9th Mile, Kamrup
Metropolitan, Guwahati, Assam - 781023.
.... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. Kh. Samarjit, ASG
Date of Hearing :: 07-07-2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 17-08-2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG appearing for the
respondents.
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[2]
[2] The present writ petition had been filed with the prayer to quash
and set aside the impugned order dated 16-01-2019, whereby the Director
General, CRPF had refused to consider the representations dated
04-10-2018 and 13-11-2018 submitted by the petitioner against the entries
of grading "GOOD" in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR)
for the period from 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018 on the ground that there is
no provision for considering the representation against the grading/
remarks recorded in the APAR after the expiry of the prescribed period of
time for submitting such representations. The petitioner has also prayed
for quashing or setting aside the adverse entries in his APAR for the period
from 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018 and for expunging the adverse entries in
his APAR.
[3] According to the petitioner, he is presently serving as
Commandant (IRLA-3998), Group Centre, CRPF, Langjing, Imphal. The
petitioner submitted his APAR for the period from 01-04-2017 to
31-03-2018 to the Reporting Authority, i.e., DIGP, CRPF, Group Centre,
Langjing, Imphal on 05-04-2018. In part - II of the said APAR, the petitioner
gave a brief resume of work done by him during the reporting period
including the details of significant contributions made by the petitioner in
the office through his work during the same period. The Reporting Officer
accepted the said self-appraisal report of the petitioner and recorded his
assessment in numerical figures with regard to assessment of work output,
personal attributes and functional competency of the petitioner and gave
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[3]
the grading of "VERY GOOD". According to the petitioner, the Reviewing
Authority downgraded the assessment of the Reporting Authority without
assigning any reason and gave the grading of "GOOD" only, which is below
the benchmark of "VERY GOOD" required for availing further promotion in
the higher grade. The grading of "GOOD" given by the Reviewing Authority
in the APAR of the petitioner was accepted by the Accepting Authority and
thereafter, the said APAR was communicated to the petitioner under a
letter dated 16-08-2018 of the Spl. DG, NEZ, CRPF, with a specific
direction to make representation against the entry in the said APAR if so
desired and the said APAR was received by the petitioner on 28-08-2018.
[4] In Para. XIII of the Standing Order No. 04/2015 regarding
preparation and maintenance of APAR of Officers in the CRPF, it is
provided that the concerned Officer shall be given the opportunity to make
any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the
APAR within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the
entries in the APAR and that in case no representation is received within
15 days, it shall be deemed that the concerned Officer has no
representation to make and that the APAR will be treated as final.
In the present case, the petitioner did not submitted any
representation against the entries in his APAR within the prescribed period
of 15 days, however, the petitioner wrote two letters dated 10-09-2018 and
26-09-2018 addressed to the concerned authorities of the CRPF
requesting for extension of time for submission of his representation by
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[4]
giving certain reasons as mentioned in the said letters. When the
authorities did not accede to his request, the petitioner submitted two
representations dated 04-10-2018 and 13-11-2018 to the concerned
authorities of the CRPF against the grading and entries in his APAR with
a request for upgrading the grading given by the Reviewing Authority and
also for expunging the adverse remarks of the Reviewing Authority entered
in his APAR. However, the DG, CRPF declined to consider the
representations submitted by the petitioner on the ground that there is no
provision to consider the representations against the grading/ remarks
recorded in the APAR after expiry of the prescribed period of 15 days, vide
letter dated 16-01-2019 of the DIG, (CR & Vig.). Having been aggrieved,
the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition for
redressing his grievances.
[5] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, leaned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the Reviewing Authority downgraded the
numerical grading given by the Reporting Authority in all the attributes
relating to the assessment of work output, personal attributes and
functional competency of the petitioner arbitrarily and without giving any
reason. It has also been submitted that by virtue of the downgrading of
numerical grading by the Reviewing Authority, the overall grade of the
petitioner in his APAR had been reduced from "VERY GOOD" to "GOOD",
which is below the benchmark of "VERY GOOD" for availing promotion and
other financial benefits.
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[5]
The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
Reviewing Authority had acted in an arbitrary manner and has exceeded
his power with respect to his duties for reviewing of the APAR of the
petitioner and has also failed to adhere to the instructions for writing of
APAR by not giving cogent reasons for downgrading it and that this fatal
mistake has rendered his action of downgrading and pen picture given by
him as illegal and accordingly, the same is liable to be quash and set aside.
[6] The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
Reviewing Authority had taken into consideration the displeasure issued
by higher authorities against the petitioner, which are not at all related or
relevant to the period of consideration of the petitioner's APAR and
downgraded the grading of the petitioner and as such, such action of the
Reviewing Authority is erroneous in law and exhibits biasness and mala
fide intention on the part of the Reviewing Authority.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
in all the years since 2007-08, the petitioner had been graded either as
"OUTSTANDING" or "VERY GOOD" and that downgrading his grade as
"GOOD" in the APAR for the period 2017-18 is unacceptable and such acts
of the respondents, which will adversely affect the promotion of the
petitioner, is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, mala fide, bias, discriminatory,
vindictive and capricious and accordingly, the same is liable to be quash
and set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on
the judgment and order dated 27-02-2020 passed by a Single Bench of
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[6]
this court in WP(C) No. 1193 of 2018. Paras. 15 and 25 of the said
judgment and order, relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, reads as
under:-
"15. It can be seen from the above assessment that the
petitioner was assessed as "very good" and "outstanding"
for accomplishment of exceptional work/unforeseen tasks
performed/for leadership qualities/ for initiative by the
reporting/ reviewing authorities, but, at the same time, the
petitioner was assessed "good" for the period 23.06.2016
to 31.03.2017, which is below bench mark. The aforesaid
assessment made by the authorities is impartial and no
sufficient reasoning was given to arrive at such a
conclusion. It is also seen from the records that before
assessing grade "good", the petitioner was not issued with
any notice by the reporting authority. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that without any justifiable ground and without
providing any opportunity, the grade "good" has been given
by the authorities, which is in violation of the principles of
natural justice."
"25. Thus, in all the years since 2007-08, the petitioner has
been graded as either 'outstanding' or 'very good'.
Downgrading the APAR in 2016-17 to 'good' is malafide
and arbitrary and the same is not in consonance with the
aforesaid decision cited by the petitioner."
[7] Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG appearing for the respondents
draw the attention of this court at Para 13 (iv) of the Standing Order No.
04/2015 relating to preparation and maintenance of the Annual
Performance Appraisal Report of Officers of the CRPF wherein it has
provided as under:-
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[7]
"13. COMMUNICATION OF APAR
...........
i) ...
ii) ...
iii) ...
iv) The concerned officer shall be given the opportunity to
make any representation against the entries and the
final grading given in the Report within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries in the
APAR. The representation shall be restricted to the
specific factual observations contained in the report
leading to assessment of the officer in terms of
attributes, work output etc. While communicating the
entries, it shall be made clear that in case no
representation is received within the fifteen days, it
shall be deemed that he/she has no representation to
make. If the concerned APAR Section does not receive
any information from the concerned officer on or before
fifteen days from the date of disclosure, the APAR will
be treated as final."
It has been submitted that in the present case the entries in the
APAR of the petitioner was communicated to him under cover of a letter
dated 16-08-2018 with a clear instruction that any representation against
the grading in the said APAR should be submitted within a period of 15
days from the date of receipt of the APAR. The petitioner received the said
letter along with the APAR on 28-08-2018, however, he failed to submit
any representation within the prescribed period of 15 days. It has also
been submitted that the petitioner submitted his representations dated
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[8]
04-10-2018 and 13-11-2018 after a lapse of more than 35 days and
accordingly, the authorities declined to consider such representations on
the ground that the representations are time barred and that there is no
provision under the Standing Order No. 04/2015 for condoning the delay
in submitting the said representations.
In view of the above, no illegality or irregularity had been
committed by the authorities in refusing to consider the representations
submitted by the petitioner and in issuing the impugned order dated
16-01-2019.
[8] The learned ASG submitted that the contention of the petitioner
that the Reviewing Authority downgraded the grading of the petitioner in
the APAR without giving any reason is incorrect and does not tally with the
entries made in the said APAR of the petitioner. It has been submitted that
sufficient cogent reasons have been given by the Reviewing Officer for
downgrading the assessment of the petitioner's performance on the basis
of the documents available on record. It has been submitted that the
petitioner has deliberately suppressed his own acts of indiscipline, violation
of orders and misbehaviour for which the petitioner had been awarded
displeasure and punishment of stoppage of increments after conducting a
formal enquiry for such acts in the past two years. The learned ASG also
submitted that the displeasure had been issued to the petitioner vide letter
dated 15-12-2017 which comes within the period of consideration of the
APAR of the petitioner for the period from 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018 and
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[9]
that the petitioner did not challenge the contents of the displeasure and
thus accepted the commission and omission of serious misconduct leading
to such downgrading in his APAR.
[9] It has further been submitted that the Reviewing Authority, being
the Head of Department, is privy to all confidential reports or files of the
petitioner and after taking into account the warnings given to the petitioner
by two previous IG and punishment awarded to him on two counts and the
displeasure given against the petitioner, the Reviewing Authority had given
pen picture of the performance of the petitioner and downgraded the
grading given by the Reporting Officer and that the Reviewing Authority
had acted well within his power and that there has been no violation of any
instruction by the Reviewing Authority. The learned ASG submitted that
the Reviewing Authority need not bring everything in pen picture in detail
when the contents of displeasure have been referred to in the APAR which
is self-explanatory. It has also been submitted that if the petitioner was not
satisfied with the final grading/ remarks recorded in his APAR, he should
have submitted his representation within the prescribed period of 15 days
and having failed to do so, he cannot blame the authorities or raise
allegations against them for his lapses. The learned ASG submitted that
the present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
[10] This court considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[10]
on record. On careful examination of the entries made in the APAR of the
petitioner for the period from 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018, this court found
that the Reviewing Authority downgraded the grading given by the
Reporting Authority in respect of the assessment of work output, personal
attributes and functional competency of the petitioner and reasons have
been given by the Reviewing Authority for such downgradation which are
reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"Quoting of displeasure and grading of officers "VERY
GOOD", I do not agree in totality. The grading of the officer is
over assessed. Has been over assessed in all attributes
brought out in numerical assessment. Performance has not
been commensurate to grading."
"Behaviour of officers is not commensurate to his rank and
seniority. He is belligerent and arrogant in his general
behavior. Despite repeated warnings from the seniors in the
past has not brought about change in his behaviour towards
sub-ordinates. Needs to bring about perceptible change in his
behavior to control his temper. Has a tendency to loose talk.
Not fit for independent command."
[11] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents,
serious allegations had been made against the petitioner. In the affidavit-
in-opposition, it has been stated that the displeasure issued against the
petitioner in the month of December, 2017 comes within the period of
consideration of the petitioner's APAR and that he accepted the contents
and grounds for issuance of displeasure for abusing, threatening and using
unparliamentary language against a newly recruited sub-ordinate officer
belonging to Scheduled Caste and that the contents of such displeasure
are sufficient to substantiate the contents of pen picture and numerical
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[11]
assessment of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the Reviewing
Authority being the Head of Department is privy to all confidential reports
or files in respect of the petitioner and that on perusal of series of advisories
in preceding years and enquiries conducted for acts of indiscipline and
displeasure and punishment awarded clearly substantiate the grounds for
downgradation in the conduct and behavior of the petitioner. It has also
been stated that sufficient verbal advices were given to the petitioner to
improve his conduct and performance. However, such serious allegations
have not been controverted or denied by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder
affidavit or otherwise and such serious allegations made against the
petitioner remains on record undenied and uncontroverted.
[12] As the Reviewing Authority had recorded in writing the reasons
for downgrading the assessment given by the Reporting Officer in the
APAR of the petitioner in the year 2017-18 and since the statements given
by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition about the misbehaviour,
misconduct, warning, punishment and displeasure against the petitioner
remain uncontroverted, this court, in exercise of its power for judicial
review, cannot examine the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons given
by the Reviewing Authority for downgrading the assessment given by the
Reporting Authority in the APAR of the petitioner and also the correctness
of the statements made by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition
by examining and appreciating the evidences. On careful consideration of
the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
on examination of the materials available on record, this court also found
that the authorities have not violated any provisions of the relevant
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
[12]
guidelines or Standing Orders and have acted well within its power and
jurisdiction. In view of the above, this court do not find any ground or reason
for interfering with the actions of the respondents.
[13] The judgment and order dated 27-02-2020 passed by a
co-ordinate bench of this court in WP(C) No. 1193 of 2018, which has been
relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, had been passed on the ground
that in all the years since 2007-08, the petitioner had been graded as either
"Outstanding" or "Very Good" and that downgrading the APAR in the year
2016-17 to "Good" without giving any reason was mala fide and arbitrary
and accordingly, such grading was interfered with by the court. In the
present case, the Reviewing Authority had recorded in writing the reasons
for downgrading the assessment given by the Reporting Officer in the
APAR of the petitioner and as the serious allegations raised against the
petitioner by the respondents in their counter affidavit remain
uncontroverted and undenied, the aforesaid judgment relied on by the
counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view, is not applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
In the result, the present writ petition fails and the same is
hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 681 of 2019 Contd.../-
