09 February 2024 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

A Border Security Force (BSF) Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) has successfully challenged adverse remarks in his annual performance appraisal. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing a lack of notice and vague justifications for the negative evaluation. The petitioner, an ASI (M) in the BSF, received negative remarks and an "Average" grade in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period 2011-2012. He had been on leave for medical reasons (psychotic disorder) and had limited knowledge of office work due to not assuming full charge. Despite a "Very Good" rating from the Reviewing Officer (RO), the Initiating Officer (IO) and Accepting Authority (AA) downgraded him with negative remarks.

Petition and Court's Reasoning:

The ASI argued that the process violated his natural justice rights as he wasn't given a chance to respond to the adverse remarks. The court agreed, highlighting the need for proper notice before recording negative evaluations.

Furthermore, the court found the APAR lacking specifics and "vague." The petitioner's otherwise unblemished record also played a role in the court's decision.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the negative remarks and "Average" grading. The BSF must expunge these from the petitioner's record and award him a "Very Good" grade with all corresponding benefits within eight weeks.