WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 1 of 1

Sr.No.122

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 1607/2023

CM No. 3809/2023

Reserved on:- 22.09.2025

Pronounced on:- 29.10.2025

Uploaded on:- 29.10.2025.

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced: Full

Vikas Choudhary, Age 44 years

S/O Hukam Singh,

2 I/C (IRLA 5278), Range HQ

CRPF, Hiranagar, J&K

….Petitioner

Through :-

Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.

Versus

1. Union of India,

Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. Director General,

Central Reserve Police Force,

Block No.1, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

3. Special Director General,

Central Reserve Police Force,

CZ Headquarter, Kolkata.

….Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with

Mr. Anishwar Chatterjee Koul,

Mr. Sumant Sudan,

Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSCs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner, who is working as 2 I/C (IRLA) Range HQ CRPF

Hiranagar, J&K, having been aggrieved of adverse remarks and below

benchmark grading in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 2 of 2

for the year 2018-19 and for the period w.e.f 01.04.2020 to 05.08.2020, due to

personal grudge and hostility towards him by his superior officers-

Commandant and DIG, through the medium of this petition has prayed for the

following reliefs:

“a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of

certiorari quashing order issued by respondent no.3 under no. R.XIII-

1/2021-CZ-PA(Adm.) (5278) dated 15.02.2021 whereby

representation dated 10.11.2019 filed by the petitioner against adverse

remarks and below benchmark grading in his Annual Performance

Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2018-19 has been rejected.

b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of

certiorari quashing order issued by respondent no.3 under no. R.XIII-

1/2022-CZ-PA(Adm.)-DA-II (5278) dated 21.09.2022 whereby

representation dated 15.01.2022 filed by the petitioner against adverse

remarks and below benchmark grading in his Annual Performance

Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period 01.04.2020 to 05.08.2020 has

been rejected.

c) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of

mandamus commanding the respondents, more particularly respondent

no. 2 and 3, to re-consider the representations dated 10.11.2019 and

15.01.2022 as also subsequent representations filed by the petitioner

and also to re-consider his decisions/orders dated 15.02.2021 and

21.09.2022 by expunging the adverse remarks and by upgrading his 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 3 of 3

APAR for the period 2018-19 and for the period 01.04.2020 to

05.08.2020 on the same analogy and pattern on which representation

filed by one Shri Amar Raj Assistant Commandant (IRLA 10062) was

re-considered and decided whereby final grading recorded in his

APAR for the period 13/06/2016 to 31/03/2017 has been upgraded

from “Good” to “Very good” and also on the basis of reasons and

justifications tendered by the petitioner in his representations.

d) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of

mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and promote the

petitioner to the next higher rank of Commandant, w.e.f. the date his

colleagues have been promoted alongwith all retrospective

consequential benefits.”

2. The brief facts, as narrated in the petition, are that:-

2.1 The petitioner, being 2 IC was posted in 62 Bn. CRPF Ambikapur

Chhattisgarh w.e.f. June, 2018. His superior officers viz.; Commandant

Mr. Manish Kumar Meena and Dy. Inspector General of Police Mr. S.K.

Mishra were indulging in corrupt practices and the petitioner refused to

join them in the corrupt and improper practices; that the Commandant, 62

Bn. Mr. Manish Kumar Meena being the reporting officer of the

petitioner gave him the grading in his APAR as “good” and the

Reviewing Authority i.e. DIG Mr. S.K. Mishra too graded the petitioner

“good” which is adverse and below the benchmark. 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 4 of 4

2.2 For the subsequent year i.e. 2019-20, the Reporting Authority i.e. Mr.

Manish Kumar Meena, Commandant 62 Bn. CRPF and Reviewing

Authority i.e. Mr. S.K. Mishra, DIGP, CRPF, due to their personal

grudge and hostility against the petitioner again graded the Petitioner as

“below good”, however, the Accepting Authority i.e. Inspector General

of Police, CRPF negated these adverse remarks and final grading to the

petitioner was given as “Very Good”.

2.3 In the year 2020-21, the APAR of the petitioner was in two parts viz.;

for the period from 01.04.2020 to 05.08.2020 and 06.08.2020 to

31.03.2021. In the first Part i.e. for the period from 01.04.2020 to

05.08.2020, afore-named two officers graded the petitioner as “good”

which was accepted by the Accepting Authority as well. However, in his

APAR for the period 06.08.2020 to 31.03.2021, the petitioner was

graded as “Outstanding” by the new Reporting Officer Mr. B. Veer Raju

and Reviewing Officer graded the petitioner as “Outstanding” as the

earlier officers Mr. Manish Kumar Meena and Mr. S.K. Mishra had been

transferred. The Accepting Authority finally graded the petitioner as

“very good”.

2.4 The petitioner filed representation dated 10.11.2019 against adverse

remarks and below benchmark grading in his Annual Performance

Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2018-19. The respondent no.3

vide Order dated 15.02.2021, however, rejected the representation dated

10.11.2019. The petitioner against the adverse remarks in APAR for the

period w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 05.08.2020, also filed a representation dated 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 5 of 5

15.01.2022, with the respondent no. 3 through DIGP Range, Hiranagar

CRPF, however, the respondent no.3 vide Order dated 21.09.2022 also

rejected petitioner‟s representation dated 15.01.2022. The petitioner

again represented against rejection of his representations before

respondent no.2 vide representations dated 02.01.2023, 06.01.2023,

16.02.2023 and 17.02.2023, but the same were, allegedly, never

considered nor decided. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on both sides, informed the Court that

pursuant to a direction passed by this Court vide interim order dated

16.06.2023, the competent authority considered the petitioner‟s

representations, vide order dated 29.08.2023, whereby the APARs of the year

2018-19 were maintained, however, the APARs of the part period of

01.04.2020 to 05.08.2020 were changed by upgrading the same to “very good”

from “good”. As such, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed for

the part period of the year 2020, however, the grievance for the year 2018-19

is required to be adjudicated upon in this writ petition, besides other

consequential reliefs.

4. Petitioner pleads that he has approached this court being aggrieved of

the action of the respondents in downgrading his Annual Performance

Appraisal Report for the year 2018-19 to “Good” with adverse remarks and in

rejecting his representation dated 10.11.2019 through Order dated 15.02.2021;

that subsequent Order dated 29.08.2023 has also upheld the same, but that

order is only consequential, and it does not take away the petitioner‟s right to

challenge the illegality that inheres in the original rejection. The grievance of 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 6 of 6

the petitioner is that his APARs were vitiated by technical illegality,

procedural violations, delay, bias, and mala fides, and consequently his

promotion to the next rank has been denied though his junior has already been

promoted. He therefore prays that the adverse remarks be expunged, his

grading be upgraded, and he be promoted with all consequential benefits.

5. Respondents in their reply, repudiating the claims made by the

petitioner, asserted that as per the interim order dated 16.06.2023 passed by

this Court, the representation dated 27.06.2023 preferred by the petitioner has

been considered by the competent authority-respondent no.2 on merit and after

due examination and all aspects into consideration, the following orders have

been passed vide Dte Genl, CRPF, Order No.R.XIII.18/2021-DA-13 (APAR)

dated 29.08.2023:-

(a) The „Good‟ grading recorded in part APAR period from 04.06.2018 to

31.03.2019 (year 2018-19) with some adverse remarks recorded by the

Accepting Authority, does not require any intervention and shall

remain unchanged.

(b) The grading for the part APAR period from 01.04.2020 to 05.08.2020

(year 2020-21) is hereby upgraded from „Good‟ to „Very Good‟ and

the adverse remarks, recorded by the Reporting/Reviewing authorities

and accepted by the Accepting Authority, stands expunged.

6. Mr. Ankesh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner is a decorated officer at the highest level with Police Medal for

Gallantry; that his APAR in question for the year 2018-19 is erroneously

accepted by an Officer who did not supervise the work of petitioner for a 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 7 of 7

mandatory period of 90 days for making any endorsement in APAR. This is a

technical/procedural error hence this APAR becomes invalid and cannot be

accounted for denying promotion. This is inspite of the fact that the petitioner

brought this error to the knowledge of competent authorities and requested

them to correct it sending the APAR to the authority who supervised his work

of 08 months during the period under report but the authorities chose not to

correct it and remained silent on his application; that during the year 2019-20,

the department had admitted that the reporting officer was having malafide,

biased intentions against the petitioner and upgraded the adverse APAR

awarded to the petitioner; that during 2020-21 also department has evaluated

the same authorities as biased against the petitioner and upgraded the adverse

APAR awarded by them expunging the adverse remarks; that the biasness of

reporting and reviewing officers can be deduced from the fact that prior to and

after working under command of this set of reporting and reviewing

authorities, all APARs of the petitioner are “VERY

GOOD”/“OUTSTANDING” by many authorities; that biasness of reporting

and reviewing officers is further established from the fact that the reporting

officer did not allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as per his charter of

duties and accepted all the correspondence/files by-passing the petitioner. This

was also observed by the DIGP during his visit and he had mentioned it in the

D.O. letter after visit; that during the year 2018-19 when the petitioner was

detailed for election duties in the States of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh,

Rajasthan, he was awarded with commendation disc letter by the senior most

authority in the department i.e. the Directorate General CRPF for displaying

exceptional performance and appreciation by different agencies. On one hand 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 8 of 8

the petitioner was being appreciated at the highest level in department but the

reporting officer was spoiling his APAR proves that APAR 2018-19 was not

initiated on facts; that the reporting officer has self contradicted himself in

subject APAR.

7. Mr. Chandel would further argue that during an interview in April

2021and afterwards in November 2021 the DG CRPF passed directions to

upgrade the APAR 2018-19 of petitioner after hearing his case on merit; that

the department‟s main argument is that many advisory memos were issued to

the petitioner but he failed to bring necessary improvement hence adverse

APAR were awarded. Regarding advisory memos during the year 2018-19, it

is submitted that these were deliberate letters issued with the intentions of

blackmailing the petitioner to bring him to the terms of reporting officer to be

submissive of his corrupt endeavors, as the petitioner has a reputation of being

an honest and impartial officer. Various correspondences regarding correcting

the wrong practices in office were exchanged between the petitioner and the

reporting officer; that during the next years i.e. in 2019-20 and 2020-21

greater number of such memos were issued by this set of reporting and

reviewing officers, but the department evaluated these as biased against the

petitioner and upgraded the APARs expunging the adverse remarks; that all

these letters of adversaries/warnings were represented against with next higher

authorities with facts and these representations are still pending and are not

disposed off. Hence these letters cannot be termed as operative. Lastly, it is

prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed. 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 9 of 9

8. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI assisted by M/S Anishwar

Chatterjee Koul, Sumant Sudan& Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSCs appearing for the

respondents, ex adverso, submits that the writ petition insofar as it pertains to

relief (b) i.e. APAR for the period 01.04.2020 to 05.08.2020 stands corrected

and thus, the said relief has already been granted; that on the representation

filed by the petitioner, detailed Order dated 29.08.2023 was passed by DG

CRPF and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner; that the

petitioner cannot reprobate and appro-bate at the same time with regard to two

part recorded APAR; that Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India debars

this Court to issue writ of certiorari; that this court does not have jurisdiction

as, ex facie, no relief can be granted when the order dated 29.08.2023 passed

by DG CRPF was not challenged by the petitioner; that this court cannot sit in

appeal in the matters of APARs, as the matter involves disputed questions of

facts.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions

and perused the record.

10. At the outset, this Court has to consider as to the maintainability of

writ petition, in view of the fact that during its pendency, the competent

authority had considered petitioner‟s representation and partly allowed and

partly rejected but the same was not challenged by the petitioner. It is a fact

that petitioner neither challenged the order on representation separately nor

amended this petition to seek that relief. It is well settled that the doctrine of

merger applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial orders and not to

administrative orders, the Supreme Court‟s judgments in the case of 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 10 of 10

‘P. Chitharanja Menon v. Balakrishnan’ (1977) 3 SCC 255 and ‘Roshan Lal

v. International Airport Authority’, (1980) Supp SCC 449, lay down that if

the basic order is assailed, there is no need to separately challenge the

consequential one. Relevant para 5 of the judgment P. Chitharanja Menon

(supra) is reproduced as under:

“5. The respondents who were the petitioners in the writ petition were

integrated in the service. The Government passed orders laying down the

principles of integration of the District Board Employees and the

Panchayat executive officers and Panchayat Officers. The impugned

orders under the writ petition are Ex. P10, Ex. P12 and Ex. P15. It is also

prayed that Ex P 17 may be quashed. The Government in Ex. P10 came to

the conclusion that the vacancies on the advise of the Public Service

Commission and the appointment of those that had been advised on

28

th

December, 1961, arose only on the dates enumerated in the order Ex.

P10 commencing from 30ch December, 1961, and ending with 2

nd

January,

1962 and that the appointment can only be on occurrence of the vacancies.

We do not see on what basis Ex. P10 could be challenged, Ex. P10 refers to

G.O. MS No 93/62 dated 13th February, 1962. By the G O. of 1962, 16

respondents in the writ petition were promoted as executive officers Grade I

on the advice of the Public Service Commission. The promotion of the

respondents in the writ petition having been ordered as early as 13th

February, 1962, without challenging that order a subsequent order which

determined the date of their commencement of service cannot be

challenged. In fact, the respondents were appointed to the higher posts on

28th December, 1961, and they took charge on 30

th

December, 1961, 31st

December 1961, 1st January, 1962 and 2nd January, 1962 The respondents

in this petition were integrated into the service only on 1st January, 1962.

Their position in the service was to be determined by the Government later.

If the respondents were aggrieved at the posting to the higher post of the

present appellants and others they ought to have even challenge promotion

which was made on 1st January, 1962.Not having questioned the legality of

the promotion or the G O. of 1962 it is too late for them to question the

validity of the G.O. of 1969 by filing a writ petition in the year 1972.”

11. Such a reference came up before Delhi High Court and a Division

Bench in WP No. 2673/2016, titled „Manudev Dahiya Vs. Union of India

through DG ITBP’, while discussing the object of writing the confidential

report in the light of Supreme Court judgments (1996) 8 SCC 762; (1997) 4

SCC 7, (2008) 1 SCC 379 decided the writ petition, as malice was attributed to

the superior officers recording and reviewing the APARs, vide judgment dated

18.07.2023. In the case on hand also the petitioner has raised serious 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 11 of 11

allegations of mala fide, bias, hostility etc. against his commanding officer and

next senior officer DIG, as he had protested/complained against them of

corrupt/malpractices in the command formation.

12. The object of writing of the confidentiality report has been

explained by the Supreme Court in ‘State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher’,

(1996) 8 SCC 762 to be two-fold i.e. first to give an opportunity to the officer

to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Second, it seeks to serve

improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. The

significance and importance of writing an APAR for an officer whose

promotion and career progression depends essentially on the APARs was

further emphasised by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in a case titled

‘Shri Tersem Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.’2014 SCC OnLine Del

1899, wherein it was observed that the promotion is the only incentive in a

service career; that in the absence of any promotion to a higher rank, not only

the growth and development of the individual officer stops but equally the

department or the institution gets affected. Stagnation of an employee, without

there being any chance of promotion to further higher rank, could well deter

the employee from taking any initiative to achieve higher targets, goals and

objectives for the ultimate development and growth of the department and

office which his office serves; the Annual Confidential Report is a vital mode

of assessment of the performance of an officer in the previous year. It is

through this document that the suitability of an officer‟s promotion and career

advancement is adjudged. It has been further held in this case that while

writing an APAR, the guidelines and the instructions issued by the Competent 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 12 of 12

Authority must be scrupulously adhered to, as any casual or cavalier approach

of the designated officer can jeopardize the service career of the „assessed

officer‟. The reviewing officer, while writing the APAR, must reflect that the

objective of the assessment exercise is to develop an officer so that he or she

can realize his or her potential. It is not meant to be a battle but a development

process, a cumulative effort that ensures optimal picture of the appraisee

apropos his/her performance, conduct, behaviour and potential.

13. The Apex Court in ‘Swapan Kumar Pal v. Achintya Kumar Nayak’

(2008) 1 SCC 379 observed that that the power of judicial review of the

decision of Administrative Tribunal is very limited. While exercising the

power of judicial review, the courts must limit their role and interfere only if

any legal error has been committed in the decision making process. It cannot

enter into the merits of the decision. Furthermore, while exercising the power

of judicial review, the courts should not sit as an appellate authority and must

remain confined to see whether the decision has been made in accordance with

the settled principles of law.

14. Standing Order No.04 of 2015 issued by the Directorate General of

the Central Reserve Police Force in the month of June 2015 lays down the

guidelines for the preparation and maintenance of Annual Performance

Appraisal Reports (APARs) of officers. The APARs of the officers have, thus,

to be reported, reviewed and accepted as per the aforesaid guidelines.

15. The first ground of challenge to the subject APAR of 2018-19 by the

petitioner is that of bias, mala fide, based on hostile attitude of the reporting

officer namely Commanding Officer-Mr. Manish Kumar Meena. The 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 13 of 13

petitioner has pleaded that while working as 2

nd

In-charge of the Commanding

Officer in 62 Bn. of CRPF stationed at Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, he had

observed that his Commanding Officer, Manish Kumar Meena in

collaboration with Deputy Inspector General of Police Mr. S K Misra was

indulging in corrupt practices and he refused to join them and instead raised

the issues of corrupt and improper practices, to which the reporting officer Mr.

Manish Kumar Meena, as a revenge, graded petitioner in his APAR as „good‟

which was accepted by the Reviewing Authority i.e. DIG, Mr. S K Misra and

this grading was adverse and below the benchmark which could ultimately

hinder the promotional aspects of the petitioner. It has been alleged that the

same set of officers for the subsequent year 2019-20 also graded him as

„below good‟ due to their personal grudge and hostility against the petitioner,

however, the Accepting Authority i.e. IGP, CRPF negated these adverse

remarks and final grading to the petitioner was given as „very good‟.

Astonishingly, the petitioner in the year 2020-21 for the period 01.04.2020 to

05.08.2020 was graded by the same set of officers as „good‟ which was

accepted by the Accepting Authority as well. However, for the rest of the

period w.e.f. 06.08.2020 to 31.03.2021, the petitioner was graded as

„outstanding‟ by the next officers who had replaced the Reporting Officer Mr.

Manish Kumar Meena and Reviewing Officer Mr. S K Misra, which was

accepted by the Accepting Authority as „very good‟. The contention of the

petitioner, through his counsel, is that the two officers, reporting as well as

reviewing, being hostile to the petitioner, as he had not joined them in the

malpractices being conducted by them, decided to spoil his career by

downgrading his APARs so that he may not get a chance of promotion. 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 14 of 14

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an Office Order

dated 28.03.2025 issued by the respondents Authorities, whereby a Court of

Inquiry was ordered to be conducted for the malpractices against Mr. Manish

Kumar Meena, Commandant from the years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The issuance

of this order has not been questioned by the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, which clearly indicates that the concerns raised by the petitioner

by his protests and written complaints with regard to corrupt and malpractices

by his Commanding Officer Mr. Meena were found to be correct by the

authorities later on, so as to order the Court of Inquiry against him.

17. The petitioner has restricted his petition to the APARs for the year

2018-19, which is further described in the following table:

Period Remarks of Reporting Officer &

Grade

Remarks of

Reviewing

Officer &

Grade

Remarks of

Countersigning /

Accepting

Authority &

Grade

Final

Grade

04-062018

to

31.03.2019

(Manish Kumar Meena,

Commandant)

The Officer‟s work efficiency is

good in all matters related to

administration and operations. As a

D.O. (Admin/Accounts), the

officer‟s discipline and behaviour

are good, but there is no sense of

working in harmony. Additionally,

the officer does not take the orders

of senior officers seriously, and

even after being given proper

instructions from time to time, the

officer performs the work according

to his own will, for which warning

and advice letters have also been

given. During the reporting period,

the officer‟s performance of the

tasks assigned has been ‘good’.

Grade: 5.9

(Subrat

Kumar

Mishra, DIG)

I agree with the

assessment of

Reporting

Officer. His

work and

conduct during

the period

under report

remained

Good.

Grade: 5.9

(Vijay Kumar,

IG)

Agreed.

Good

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 15 of 15

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this

Court towards the advisories/warnings issued to the petitioner during the

period of the subject APAR and that the petitioner had filed

replies/representations against all these advisories/warnings memos but the

same have not been finalized by the competent authorities, which further

indicates that these advisories/warnings were just issued as a ploy to spoil the

APARs of the petitioner.

19. From the aforesaid facts, it has been amply established that the

Reporting and the Reviewing Officers of the APARs of the petitioner were

hostile towards him and, as such, the recording of APARs against the

petitioner was actuated with mala fides so as to revenge the complaints of the

corrupt/malpractices carried out at the formation of 62 Bn. CRPF.

20. Standing Order No. 04 of 2015 mandates that an officer must have

supervised the work of the subordinate for a minimum of 90 days before

recording or accepting his APARs, however, in the present case, Shri Vijay

Kumar, Inspector General, joined the Sector only on 16.02.2019 and remained

there till 29.04.2019 and, observed the petitioner‟s work only for 44 days and

the same was well short of the mandatory requirement of 90 days; that despite

this clear statutory bar, he proceeded to accept the APARs of the petitioner;

that this is not a mere irregularity but goes to the very root of jurisdiction.

Delhi High Court in „Mritunjay Kumar v. Union of India’ reported at

2024:DHC:7360-DB, has held that unless the reporting or reviewing authority

has observed an officer for at least three months, he cannot validly record the 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 16 of 16

APAR. Hence, for this reason alone, the entire APAR of 2018-19 stands

vitiated.

21. Clause 3.19 of the Standing Order stipulates that the use of phrases

such as “I agree” or “I disagree” by the reviewing or accepting authority shall

not by itself be construed as sufficient reason to upgrade or downgrade an

APAR. Relevant Clause 3.19 is extracted as under:

“3.19 I agree or disagree with the Reporting

Officer/Reviewing Officer used by the

Reviewing/Accepting Authority shall not be construed

as sufficient reason for upgrading/downgrading the

overall grading given by the Reporting

Authority/Reviewing Authority.”

The purpose of this clause is to ensure application of mind, and to require that

reasons are recorded when agreeing with or differing from the reporting

officer. In the instant case, both the reviewing and accepting authorities have

simply written “I agree” with the assessment of the reporting officer, without

disclosing any reasons whatsoever; thatthis perfunctory approach is in direct

violation of Clause 3.19, and on this ground also the APAR is liable to be set

aside.

22. The representation of the petitioner was alleged to have been rejected

in a wholly arbitrary and delayed manner. The petitioner submitted a detailed

representation on 10.11.2019 raising as many as 29 distinct grounds, including

specific allegations of bias, procedural violation, and detailed replies to the

cautionaries issued and the Standing Order requires that such representation be

disposed of objectively and within 30 days, in consultation, if necessary, with 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 17 of 17

the reporting or reviewing officers. Relevant Clause 13(vi) is extracted as

under:

“vi) The Competent Authority for considering adverse remarks under

the existing instructions may consider the representation, if

necessary, in consultation with the reporting and/or reviewing

officer and shall decide the matter objectively based on the

material placed before him within a period of thirty days from

the date of receipt of the representation.”

In the present case, the representation was rejected after more than 13 months,

vide order dated 15.02.2021, which is a clear violation of Clause 13(vi) of the

Standing Order. Further, the rejection order without adverting to the grounds

taken by the petitioner; is non-speaking order, passed mechanically, and

violative of principles of natural justice.

23. Next contention made on behalf of petitioner is that the entire

assessment of the petitioner for the year 2018-19 was vitiated by personal bias

and mala fides; that the reporting officer, Commandant-Manish Kumar

Meena, and the reviewing officer, DIGP-Subrat Kumar Mishra, bore

animosity towards the petitioner because he resisted and exposed their

irregular and corrupt practices in administrative, provisioning, and operational

matters; that the petitioner was not allowed to discharge his charter of duties in

a fair manner, and he had to address written complaints to higher authorities;

that in retaliation, a series of false advisories and cautionaries were issued, and

his APAR was deliberately downgraded; that this bias is demonstrated by a

comparison of his record: prior to 2018, his APARs were consistently 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 18 of 18

“Outstanding/Very Good”; immediately after August 2020, when other

officers became his reporting and reviewing authorities, his APARs were

again “Outstanding/Very Good”; that it is only during the tenure of these two

officers that he has been consistently downgraded.

24. The alleged bias is further confirmed from the words of the accepting

authority himself; that while upgrading another APAR, he noted that there

were “no shortcomings in the petitioner‟s professional performance” but that

there were “personal issues with the CO” which affected relations. This is a

categorical admission that personal likes and dislikes had crept into the

assessment; that there is also an internal contradiction in the impugned APAR

which reveals non-application of mind. In Part III, the reporting officer fully

agreed with the petitioner‟s self-appraisal, acknowledging that he had

completed the tasks entrusted to him, including anti-naxal operations, and that

he had been awarded a DG‟s Commendation Disc for election duties. Yet, in

Part V, he suddenly concludes that the petitioner‟s work was merely “Good”

and that he did not take orders seriously. Such inconsistency in the same report

shows mala fide intent rather than genuine evaluation; that the downgrading is

wholly arbitrary as during the very same year 2018-19, the petitioner was

being formally commended at the highest levels of CRPF; thathe received

appreciation certificates from the DIG, the IG, and was awarded the DG‟s

Commendation Disc for ensuring peaceful conduct of elections.

25. The APAR for 2018-19, having been accepted by an incompetent

authority, who had not observed the petitioner for the requisite period;

downgraded mechanically in violation of Standing Orders; the representation 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 19 of 19

has been rejected after inordinate delay by a non-speaking order; is vitiated by

admitted bias and mala fides; it contradicts contemporaneous recognition of

petitioner‟s meritorious service; and it is against the settled law laid down by

the Courts. The adverse remarks actuated with malice, therefore deserve to be

quashed.

26. Having regard to the discussion made hereinabove and the reasons

assigned, it is concluded that the Commanding Officer Mr. Manish Kumar

Meena faced with the protests/complaints by the petitioner raising allegations

of corruption against him reported adverse APARs of the petitioner and

prepared memos to justify his adverse remarks to take out his irritation. There

is no hesitation to hold that the memos with regard to advisories/warnings had

been created merely to justify the adverse report of the Reporting Officer. This

Court is, thus, compelled to observe that the Reporting Officer as

Commandant 62

nd

Bn. had acted with extreme bias and had even proceeded to

prepare documents/memos with the same objective to ruin the career of the

petitioner who had been deprived of the promotion that he deserved. Instead of

demonstrating leadership, guide and mentor for the subordinate officers, the

superior officers have conducted themselves with vindictiveness and malice

towards the petitioner. Since a Court of Inquiry is already ordered by the

respondents against the Commandant, Mr. Manish Kumar Meena, this Court

refrains itself from recommending any other action against him.

27. As a result, the writ petition is allowed as the Court finds no

justification in the adverse remarks in the APARs of the year 2018-19 and

direct that those be expunged. A direction is issued to the respondents to 2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507

WP(C) No. 1607/2023 Page 20 of 20

conduct a review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for next promotion

if his junior has already been promoted and if so found fit to grant him the

promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with all

consequential benefits.

28. The present petition along with pending application(s), if any, is thus

disposed of.

Jammu:

29.10.2025

Raj Kumar

(

) (M.A Chowdhary)

Judge

Whether the order is speaking? Yes

Whether the order is reportable? Yes

This judgment is being pronounced by me today, in terms of Rule

138(3) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999.

Jammu:

29.10.2025

(RAHUL BHARTI)

JUDGE

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3507