IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2176 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. SATHEESHA R SON OF SRI R T RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS CISF UNIT CISF NO. 911402094, MCF HASSAN-573 201.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY N S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS JAISALMER HOUSE 26, MANSINGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110 011.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) BLOCK NO.13, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110 011.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF (SS) HEAD QUARTER CHPT CAMPUS, NEAR WAR MEMORIAL ANNA SQUARE, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU-600009.
4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) ANTHARIKSH BHAWAN, DOS HQRS, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560094.
5. THE COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT ISAC, VIMANAPURA BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560017.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE MASTER CONTROL FACILITY HASSAN KARNATAKA-573201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 6) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.16431/2015 DATED 29/04/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16431 of 2015, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner who is a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short ‘CISF’) filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the 5th respondent (Annexure-W) and to quash the Office Memorandum dated 09.12.2014 passed by the 5th respondent (Annexure-Z). It is stated that the petitioner joined serve as Constable on 11.09.1991. The 5th respondent on 23.03.2013 communicated the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARS) relating to the petitioner for the period from 14.01.2011 to 13.12.2011 and 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012. The APAR shows “Good”. Whereas petitioner states that he was entitled for grading of “Outstanding” in place of “Good”. Further states that he has no adverse remarks during the relevant period. He submitted a representation on 29.03.2013 to consider him to be graded as “Outstanding” instead of “Good”, for the APARs of the years 2011 and 2012. The petitioner made one more representation on 04.09.2013 reiterating the same. Subsequently, on 09.02.2013, the 5th respondent communicated the APARs of the year 2013 wherein the petitioner has been graded as “Average”. Whereas petitioner was of the opinion that he is entitled for grading of “Outstanding”. Therefore, he made a representation dated 18.2.2014 to the 5th respondent requesting him to grade him as “Outstanding” in place of “Average”. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act and he was not furnished with the information. The 4th respondent directed the petitioner to submit a representation vide Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2014. The petitioner enclosed the copy of representations made by him on earlier occasions and forwarded the same to 5th respondent. The 5th respondent by his order dated 22.08.2014 and 09.12.2013 rejected the representations of the petitioner and upheld the entries in the APARs of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. Challenging both the orders, the petitioner filed instant writ petition contending that the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer have forfeited their right to enter any remark against the petitioner in view of lapse of time and the rejection of his representations is not proper. It is stated that the Assistant Commandant targeted the petitioner to spoil his career. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the grounds urged by the petitioner dismissed the writ petition holding that the entries made by the Authorities in APARs are normally not interfered with, unless the assessment is malafide. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Central Government Standing Counsel. Perused the writ appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the APARs for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 requires to be upgraded in respect of the petitioner as there is no adverse remarks against the petitioner in those years and he has worked exceptionally well. The learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without examining the grounds urged by the petitioner in its proper perspective. The counsel for the appellant files a memo dated 29.03.2019 producing three Official Memorandums, stating that those Official Memorandums ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondent-Authorities while grading the petitioner’s performance during the relevant period. It is his submission that for the relevant period he was entitled to be graded as “Outstanding”. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ appeal.
5. Per contra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no adverse entry against the petitioner, but based on his performance he has been graded properly which requires no interference. He submits that it is for the petitioner’s immediate higher authority to grade him which would be reviewed by the Reviewing Authority. In the case on hand, the petitioner is graded “Good” for the year 2011 and 2012 and “Average” for the year 2013 which is proper and is based on petitioner’s performance.
6. We have gone through the writ appeal papers and also the Official Memorandums produced along with the memo dated 29.03.2019. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusal of the learned Single Judge’s order, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned order which requires no interference.
7. The petitioner is working as Constable under 5th respondent. The 5th respondent communicated on 23.03.2013, the APARs for the years 2011 and 2012 to the petitioner. The petitioner is graded “Good” for those years. Subsequently, the petitioner was communicated on 09.02.2014 APAR for the year 2013 which is graded as “Average”. The petitioner is of the opinion that he is entitled to be graded as “Outstanding” for the above years based on his performance. He submits that he has blemishless service and he ought to have been graded as “Outstanding”. The immediate Higher officer on assessing the performance of his subordinates would enter the grading for the particular year and the same would be submitted to the Reviewing Authority. The Reviewing Authority would on assessing the material could agree with the Assessing Officer or it could express its own opinion. In the case on hand, the Assessing Authority in respect of the petitioner had graded “Good” for the years 2011 and 2012 and “Average” for the year 2013 which is accepted by the Reviewing Authority. It is for the authorities to assess the performance of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot assess his own performance and say that he is entitled for a particular grading. The contention that the Constables working with him have been graded better than the petitioner has no merit. Performance of individuals is to be assessed and performance of each individual cannot be comparable to other individual. There is no comparison of performance between two Constables.
8. The petitioner has contended that the assessment has not been made within the time schedule prescribed under the Official Memorandums produced along with the memo. The Authority not adhering to the time schedule would not make any difference in the performance of the petitioner. Petitioner cannot take advantage of the time schedule and seek for upgrading his grade to “Outstanding”. The Official Memorandums produced by the petitioner are guidelines for the authorities for preparation of APARs which would indicate timely preparation and maintenance of APARs, communication of all entries for fairness and transparency. The Official Memorandums also would indicate that numerical grading are to be awarded for quality of work output, personal attitudes and functional competence of the Officer. The same would be for Group-‘B’ and ‘C’ officials. The petitioner even though has made allegation against the Assistant Commandant by name Navdeep Singh, but has not made him party to the proceedings. No particular incident has been indicated against him. In the absence of materials, the same cannot be gone into. Grading in APARs would wholly depend on the performance of each personnel and there cannot be any straight jacket formula to assess the performance of personnel. Hence we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous nor perverse. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-*CT:bms