A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, partially allowed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, which upheld the grading given to the petitioner in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) by Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The court emphasized that while judicial review is permissible, courts should not interfere in assessments unless there is clear evidence of bias or prejudice.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, an employee of the Central Soil & Mineral Research Station (CSMRS), filed seven Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging his ACRs over a period of several years. The petitioner initially made representations against these ACRs, but they were rejected on August 5, 2011, and December 29, 2011. He further contested these decisions along with subsequent communications dated December 28, 2012, and February 25, 2014.

Read Also:- Delhi High Court Rules Against Indefinite Property Attachment by Income Tax Department

The petitioner argued that adverse remarks had been made against him without prior notice or an opportunity to improve his performance. He contended that his grades had been downgraded from "Very Good" to "Good" without explanation, despite such ratings being crucial for promotion.

The reviewing officer's background was also questioned, as he specialized in Civil Engineering while the petitioner was an Electronics Engineer. The petitioner argued that the reviewing officer lacked the technical expertise to assess his performance accurately.

Findings of the Tribunal and Initial High Court Decision

The Tribunal initially dismissed the Original Applications on March 28, 2019, stating that there was no requirement to warn or reprimand the petitioner before assigning an "Average" grade, as per an Office Memorandum dated June 5, 1981. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the petitioner approached the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed it to reconsider the matter.

Read Also:- Delhi HC Orders Removal of Defamatory Video Against Sadhguru and Isha Foundation

On September 12, 2019, the Tribunal again dismissed the petitioner’s applications, leading him to re-approach the High Court.

The court examined two key issues:

1. Legality of ACR gradings assigned by Reporting and Reviewing Officers
2. Whether ACRs should be communicated before being considered in promotion assessments

Judicial Review of ACRs

Citing landmark judgments, including Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, and State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, the court reaffirmed that while courts must give due weight to officers’ assessments, any apparent inconsistency or bias in ACRs warrants judicial scrutiny.

"If there are starkly inconsistent remarks, it could be inferred that such remarks were deliberately made due to bias against the officer," the court noted.

The bench emphasized that reporting officers must maintain objectivity, ensuring that performance assessments are free from personal prejudices.

Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Assessee Must Receive Notice Before Extending Seizure Period Under CGST Act

Additionally, the court ruled that the reviewing officer cannot downgrade the reporting officer’s grading without providing sufficient reasoning.

Evaluation of the Petitioner’s ACRs

Upon reviewing the petitioner’s ACRs, the court found no compelling reason to interfere with most of the gradings, as no evident bias or prejudice was found. However, exceptions were made for two specific years:

2001-2002: The petitioner was entitled to a "Very Good" rating, as the reviewing officer did not provide justification for downgrading his grade from "Very Good" to "Good."

2004-2005: The petitioner was unfairly given an "Average" rating without reasons, despite the reviewing officer agreeing with other positive assessments. Citing Tarsem Kumar v. Union of India, the court ruled that the petitioner should have been given notice before his grade was downgraded.

For other years (2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009), the court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, finding no evidence of bias or procedural irregularities.

Communication of ACRs Before Promotion Consideration

The court also examined whether ACRs should be communicated to employees before they are considered for promotions. Referring to Dev Dutt v. Union of India, the court clarified that non-adverse but below-benchmark gradings must be communicated to the employee. However, in the petitioner’s case, since the grading system allowed "Good" ratings to be considered for promotion in specific contexts, the communication requirement was not deemed necessary.

The Delhi High Court partially allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner’s ACRs for 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 to be upgraded while upholding other gradings. The court reaffirmed that judicial interference in employee assessments is permissible only in cases of clear bias or procedural violations.

Case Title: Aabi Binju versus Union of India

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K.L. Manhas, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Megha Sharma, Mr. Arya Jha and Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Advs.