Patna High Court
Prawesh Singh vs The Union Of India on 8 December, 2023
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.238 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6610 of 2020
======================================================
Prawesh Singh Son of Late Nagdev Singh resident of Village- Munaria, P.O.
and P.S.- Basaura District- Palamu (Jharkhand) PIN- 822118 Presently
residing at Mohallah- Tilak Nagar Colony, Road no. 01, Rukunpura, P.S.-
Rupaspur, Distt.- Patna (Bihar)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home,
Govt. of India
2. The Director- General, Border Security Force, CGO Complex, Block no.-
10, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
3. The Special Director- General, BSF (Eastern Command) Head Quarter- 20/1
Gurusaday Road, Kolkata- 700019
4. The Inspector General, Border Security Force, Frontier HQ, Sheelbagan,
Tripura
5. The Deputy Inspector General, Sector H.Q. Udaipur B.S.F. Tripura
6. The Commandant 48 Bn. BSF, Painthee P.O.- Saruba, District- Samba, State
J and K,- 184129
7. The Commandant 48 Bn. BSF, Maharanichera Udaipur, Tripura
8. The Commandant 184 Bn. BSF, Maltaram P.O.- Serkawan District- Lunglei,
State- Mizoram- 796701
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Nath Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
For the Union of India : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC
Ms. Nirmala Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Devansh Shankar Singh, JC to ASG
Mr. Amarjeet, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
2/9
Date : 08-12-2023
The present appeal has been preferred challenging
the order and judgment dated 03.03.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 6610 of 2020 by which
taking into account the fact that the appellant has not
questioned the validity of the order/decision dated 05.06.2016;
he is not entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly the
writ petition was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case is/are as follows:
3. The appellant is serving with the Border Security
Force (henceforth for short, 'the BSF') and at the relevant
time was as an Assistant Commandant. He was further due for
his promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant.
4. His Part Performance Assessment Report
(henceforth for short, 'the PPAR') for the period 15th
November, 2014 to 31st March, 2015 was initiated by the 48
Bn BSF HQ, Tripura (where the appellant was posted). The
Commandant, 48 Bn BSF being the Reporting/Initiating
authority endorsed the following remarks:
" The officer seems to be sober
but discharged his duties satisfactory. He
has not displayed requisite quality and
standard of commitment/works. He works in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
3/9
methodical way takes own decision without
consulting his superior. Has professionally
knowledge in good way. However, he has
effectively dominated his AOR on the
border. But officer need to bear he can
perform better way. Performance reviewed
good. I graded him "Good Officer".
5. It was reviewed by the then DIG, SHQBSF,
Udaipur (Tripura) as the Reviewing Authority and agreed
with the Reporting/Initiating Authority which was further
accepted by the IG, Ftr HQ BSF, Tripura as an Accepting
Authority.
6. Later, taking note of the aforesaid observation,
the Superior Officers issued notice to him on 22.11.2015
asking him to reply as to why the good remarks given by the
Reporting/Initiating Authority shall not be treated as an
adverse remarks against him. The appellant submitted his
explanation on 11.01.2016 which was turned down on
02.06.2016
by the Special DG BSF (Eastern Command),
Kolkata.
7. The second representation before the Principal
Secretary, Department of Home, Government of India, New
Delhi also came to be rejected on 07.10.2016.
8. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
quashing of the Annual/Part Performance Assessment Report
dated 30.04.2015 stating that the respondent no. 6
( Reporting/Assessing Authority) without proper evaluation of
his performance recorded adverse comment thus stalling his
next promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant. It seems
subsequently, the appellant came to be promoted as Deputy
Commandant on 27.05.2020.
9. The 'PPAR' dated 30.04.2015 dates back to the
year 2015-16. The appellant chose to file writ petition in the
year 2020 and after he was promoted to the post of Deputy
Commandant. Though the grading was 'good', there were
comments made by the Reporting Officer, which was
deprecatory of his conduct and work. Hence though graded
'good' the adverse comments were communicated to him and
despite his objection entries in the ACR were treated as
adverse. Further, he failed to challenge the orders by which
promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant was denied to
him/ the orders passed rejecting his representation, as narrated
above.
10. The writ Court took up the matter on
03.03.2022 and having gone through the facts of the case and
noticed that the order/decision dated 02.06.2016 (wrongly
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
recorded as 05.06.2016) having not been challenged, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for in the present
petition till the said order is not set aside.
11. The relevant observation of the learned Single
Judge need to be incorporated here-in-below:
"Petitioner while working as
Assistant Commandant, Annual
Performance Assessment report for the
year 2014-2015 was written on 30th April,
2015. Under column no.10 of the APAR
dated 30th April, 2015, certain issues were
taken note of by superiors to the extent that
petitioner's work in methodical way taken
own decision without consulting his
superiors, even though professionally,
petitioners knowledge was good. Taking
note of aforesaid observation, superior
officer issued a notice as to why these good
remarks shall not be treated as adverse
remarks on 22.11.2015. Petitioner had
submitted his explanation on 11.01.2016
and it was turned down on 05.06.2016. The
petitioner's grievance is that, though APAR
is good for the year 2014 and 2015, the
same shall be taken into consideration for
the purpose of promotion to the post of
Deputy Commandant as on 28.06.2018 and
23.06.2019 is good. However, the petitioner
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
suffered an order on 05.06.2016 in respect
of APAR for the year 2014-2015, converting
the good remarks to that of adverse remarks
and petitioner has not questioned the
validity of such adverse report dated
05.06.2016. The official
respondent/promoting authority to the post
of Deputy Commandant has taken note of
the decision dated 05.06.2016 while
rejecting the petitioner's claim for
promotion to the post of Deputy
Commandant on 28.06.2018 and
23.06.2019. In the light of these facts and
circumstances and the fact that the
petitioner has not questioned the validity of
the order/decision dated 05.06.2016, the
petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought
in the present petition as long as order
dated 05.06.2016 is not set aside.
Accordingly, writ petition stands
dismissed."
12. Aggrieved, the present appeal.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
as also the respondents. We have also perused the report
submitted by the Reporting/Initiating Authority who had
incorporated the remarks after the appellant submitted his
representation against the adverse remarks recorded in 'the
APAR'. The same has been part of the respondents' counter
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
affidavit as Annexure-H dated 25.04.2016 and the relevant
part is incorporated here-in-below:
"Going back to ACR writing, if
an employee is to be given "Very Good"
grading. Then all the sentences in the pen-
picture will invariably carry the word 'very
good'. But in the case of APAR/PPAR both
the "grey areas" and "good performances"
needs to be included in the pen-picture. As
we all know Human Resource Development
is a constant "appraisal for change and
improvement" for the employee.
In compliance to BSF APAR
Procedure and Instruction-2012. Chapter
IV, para 4,9 where it is stated that; "it is
necessary that every Govt servant should
know what his defects are and how could he
remove them."
Accordingly, I used the phrase
"He has not displayed requisite quality and
standard of commitment/works" and "but
officer need to bear he can perform in
better ways", these sentences are not
adverse remarks but the areas which I
wanted to apprise him for improvement.
Further I also wrote He "has professional
knowledge in good ways", "he effectively
dominated his AOR on the border", then
finally I graded him "Good Officer" and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
the marks I awarded him was "05.87".
My comment on the
representation submitted by Shri Prawesh
Singh, Asstt Comdt are neither contrary for
casual, but appraisal of his performances
during the given period.
Once again I would like to state
that, the words and sentences I used in the
pen-picture writing were without any
prejudiced or mala-fide intention.
Hence, it is kindly requested to
take the pen-picture initiated by me, in the
positive tone as mandated by the DoPT in
the APAR pen-picture writing.
Submitted please."
14. This Court is in complete agreement with the
observation made by learned Single Judge. When the
appellant failed to challenge the orders by which the
promotion was denied to him, no relief can be granted to him.
15. Further, for proper appreciation, we have also
looked into the report submitted by the Reporting/Initiating
Authority dated 25.04.2016 in which he has clearly stated that
the said entry is/are made only to let the employee know his
performance which were 'appreciated' as well as the area
where he 'needs' to put more efforts as desired by the
superiors and others and that is why at the end, he had graded
Patna High Court L.P.A No.238 of 2022 dt.08-12-2023
the appellant as a 'Good Officer' and also awarded 5.87 marks
which according to him was neither contrary nor casual but a
perusal of his performances during the period.
16. So far as the appeal is concerned, as observed
above, the writ Court rightly held that in absence of challenge
to the order dated 02.06.2016 (wrongly typed as 05.06.2016),
no relief can be extended to the appellant. The challenge to the
A/PPAR dated 30.04.2015 is also grossly delayed.
17. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
kiran/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.12.2023
Transmission Date
