In a landmark judgment that reinforces constitutional protections for public servants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling regarding annual performance assessments and promotion procedures. The court has firmly established that a solitary below-benchmark grading in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) or Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) cannot be permitted to derail the promotion prospects of an officer who possesses an otherwise exemplary service record spanning decades.
Constitutional Principle of Equal Treatment
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, in a detailed order dated January 23, emphasized the fundamental constitutional requirement that similarly placed officers must be treated alike. The court articulated that allowing one tainted APAR entry to eclipse decades of meritorious service—particularly in a scenario where juniors might overtake a senior in a uniformed force—would constitute hostile discrimination. This is especially significant when the rank in question carries an honor that endures beyond retirement, affecting an officer's legacy and standing.
The court specifically set aside adverse remarks recorded in the APAR of an Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) officer, establishing an important precedent. Justice Moudgil held that any entry in an ACR or APAR that has a bearing on promotion prospects, even if it is not formally described as "adverse," must be communicated to the officer concerned and must remain open to challenge. The failure to adhere to this procedure, according to the court, violates the core principles of natural justice and fair treatment that are essential for public servants.
Case Background: ITBP Officer's Challenge
The case centered on Roshan Sharma, a Second-in-Command (2IC) in the ITBP, who challenged an "average" grading of 3.5 awarded for the period from April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023. Despite nearly forty years of unblemished service characterized by consistent excellence, this single grading resulted in his exclusion from promotion to the rank of Commandant. Sharma contended that the grading was vindictive, following complaints he had made against senior officers, and argued that his career was otherwise marked by "excellent," "outstanding," and "very good" gradings throughout.
Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that during the same appraisal period, he held additional responsibilities and was medically certified as "Shape-1," which directly contradicted remarks in the APAR regarding obesity and poor health. This discrepancy raised serious questions about the accuracy and fairness of the assessment.
Government's Defense and Court's Scrutiny
The central government opposed the plea, maintaining that the APAR represented a fair, multi-tier assessment conducted through proper channels. Officials informed the court that the report was initiated by Commandant Vikrant Thapliyal, who initially awarded a grading of 5.32 with specific remarks concerning turnout and conduct during Sharma's posting at the Basic Training Centre (BTC) in Bhanu. This initial assessment was subsequently reviewed and recorded through the established tiered system.
The Centre also informed the High Court that the petitioner had taken substantial leave during the period—totaling 91 days—and that the appraisal was intended as a composite evaluation of performance, discipline, and availability. However, the court examined these arguments in light of the broader principles of justice and equity.
Court's Directive and Remedial Measures
After thoroughly hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court ordered the expungement of the adverse remarks from the officer's APAR. The court issued a clear directive to the ITBP to convene a review departmental promotion committee (DPC) within one month. This committee must reconsider Sharma's promotion by either completely ignoring the 2022-23 APAR or treating it as being at par with his previous successful gradings.
The court further specified that if Sharma is found fit for promotion, the ITBP must grant him promotion with all consequential benefits. This includes appropriate seniority and arrears of pay, calculated from the date his immediate junior was promoted. This comprehensive remedy aims to restore the officer's career trajectory and compensate for the unjust delay caused by the contested APAR entry.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of public servants and ensuring that administrative actions align with constitutional mandates of fairness and non-discrimination. It underscores the importance of transparent and just appraisal systems in maintaining morale and integrity within uniformed and civil services.
