The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a landmark judgment emphasizing that a solitary below-benchmark grading in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) or Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) should not be permitted to derail the promotion prospects of an officer who has an otherwise exemplary service record. This ruling underscores the constitutional mandate for treating similarly placed officers equally and preventing hostile discrimination in uniformed forces.
Constitutional Principles and Fair Treatment
In a significant order dated January 23, Justice Sandeep Moudgil articulated that allowing one tainted APAR to eclipse decades of meritorious service would constitute hostile discrimination. This is particularly critical in uniformed forces where ranks carry an honour that endures beyond retirement. The court highlighted that the Constitution requires that officers in similar positions be treated alike, ensuring fairness and justice in promotional processes.
Case Background: Roshan Sharma's Challenge
The case involved Roshan Sharma, a Second-in-Command (2IC) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), who challenged an "average" grading of 3.5 awarded for the period from April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023. Despite nearly 40 years of unblemished service, this single grading led to his exclusion from promotion to the rank of Commandant. Sharma contended that the grading was vindictive, stemming from complaints he had made against senior officers, thereby questioning the integrity of the assessment process.
Court's Ruling on APAR Entries and Natural Justice
Justice Moudgil held that any entry in an ACR or APAR that impacts promotion prospects, even if not formally labeled as "adverse," must be communicated to the officer and remain open to challenge. The court asserted that failing to do so violates the principles of natural justice and fair treatment for public servants. This decision reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in performance appraisals within government and defense sectors.
Government's Stance and Court's Directive
The central government opposed Sharma's plea, maintaining that the APAR was a fair, multi-tier assessment. However, after hearing both sides, the high court ordered the expungement of the adverse remarks. The court directed the ITBP to convene a review departmental promotion committee (DPC) within one month. This committee must reconsider Sharma's promotion by either ignoring the 2022-23 APAR or treating it as being at par with his previous successful gradings.
Consequential Benefits and Promotion
The court further mandated that if Sharma is found fit for promotion, the ITBP must grant him the promotion with all consequential benefits. This directive aims to rectify any injustice caused by the single below-benchmark grading and restore fairness in the promotional hierarchy.
Implications for Public Servants and Uniformed Forces
This judgment sets a crucial precedent for public servants and members of uniformed forces across India. It emphasizes that performance appraisals should be holistic, considering an officer's entire service record rather than being unduly influenced by isolated entries. The ruling also highlights the importance of adhering to natural justice principles, ensuring that officers have the opportunity to contest any grading that may adversely affect their careers.
By addressing issues of vindictiveness and discrimination in APARs, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision promotes a more equitable and just system for promotions in government and defense services. It serves as a reminder that the integrity of promotional processes is vital for maintaining morale and honour within these esteemed institutions.
