In the case of Dev Dutt (supra), this Court has held in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under:
under:-
“36. In the present case, we we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the annual confidential report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there there may be no rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.
- We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the authority concerned, and the authority conce concerned must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must Item No. 58 (C-IV) O.A. No.3438/2022 act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.”
I the Matter of Raju Ahuja vs UOI (O.A. No. 195/2015, CAT Ahmedabad), the Tribunal held that reporting/reviewing officers lose their right to record entries after 30th June/31st August respectively. Similarly, in Rajnish Kumar vs UOI (O.A. No. 4346/2017, Tribunal emphasized strict adherence to APAR schedules, treating delayed entries as invalid. In Gunjan Prasad vs GOI (O.A. No. 1233/2014), the the Tribunal held that where remarks are recorded beyond prescribed dates or by retired officers, the period must be treated as “No APAR”.
In the matter of Dr. Md. Mozaffar Uddin, vs Employee State Insurance Corporation In O.A No. 3438/2022 The CAT, PB, New Delhi held that:-
- CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the above analysis and discussions, we quash and set aside the decision of the respondents to deny promotion to the applicant from 11.02.2014 on the basis of the impugned APAR for the year 2012 2012-2013. The DPC proceedings denying his promotion to the post of IMO Grade-II w.e.f. 11.02.2014 and thereafter to the post of Chief Medical Officer (CMO) w.e.f. 11.02.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. The case of the applicant for promotion as of the date on which his juniors were promoted is directed to be reconsidered afresh, ignoring the tainted APAR of 2012-2013, 2012 2013, and taking into account the remaining valid APARs. The DPC/competent authority shall undertake this exercise and pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event the applicant is otherwise found fit and eligible under the applicable Recruitment Rules, he shall be accorded promotion and seniority from the date of his immediate junior on a notional notional basis. The applicant shall be entitled to actual arrears limited to three years preceding the date of filing of the present Original Application, in terms of the law laid down in UOI vs. Tarseem Singh Singh, (2008) 8 SCC
7.2. Costs of Rs. 10,000/ shalll also be payable to the applicant nt on account of the respondent failure to retain the relevant records during the pendency of the present Original Application.
