Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairmen v. Chhanveer

JUDGMENT (ORAL) %

07.10.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶1This writ petition assails judgment dated 29 May 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 4095/2025.

¶2The lis before the Tribunal related to the gradings in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports2 of the respondent for the periods 1 April 2021 to 30 December 2021 and 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024. 1 "the Tribunal" hereinafter 2 "APARs' hereinafter

¶3For the period 1 April 2021 to 30 December 2021, the respondent was graded "very good" by the reporting officer, "good" by the reviewing officer and "average" by the Accepting/Countersigning Authority. The benchmark for promotion to the next grade of Superintending Engineer was "very good". As such, the overall gradings of "good" and "average" were below the prescribed benchmark for promotion and were, therefore, adverse in impact and consequence.

¶4The respondent, therefore, represented against the aforesaid APAR on 28 November 2022. Accepting his representation, the reviewing officer upgraded the overall gradings of the respondent from "good" to "very good". The countersigning/accepting authority, however, continued to retain the grading of "average". In other words, the position that emerged, after the decision on the respondent's representation, was that the reporting and reviewing officers had both graded him "very good", but the countersigning/accepting authority continued to grade him "average".

¶5For the next period 31 December 2021 to 31 March 2022, which is not a period forming subject matter of dispute in the present case, it is worthwhile to note that the respondent was graded "outstanding" by the reporting, reviewing as well as accepting authorities.

¶6The second period in controversy is the period 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024. During this period, the reporting officer graded the respondent "outstanding", the reviewing officer graded him "very good" and the accepting authority/countersigning authority graded him "good" on the ground that his past performance in the South Zone was not up to the mark.

¶7Aggrieved thereby, the respondent submitted various representations, which were rejected by communications dated 9 September 2025 and 12 September 2025, without assigning any reasons.

¶8In these circumstances, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 4095/2025, which stands allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 29 May 2026.

¶9The Tribunal has, in arriving at its decision, relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka3, SBI v. Kashinath Kher4, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Yamuna Shankar Mishra5 and Sukhdev v. Commissioner6.

¶10Following these decisions, the Tribunal has observed that it is permissible for an appointing authority to differ with a reviewing authority regarding the gradings to be given to an officer, but that such a difference has to be for valid reasons, set out in writing. 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 258 4 (1996) 8 SCC 762 5 (1997) 4 SCC 7 6 (1996) 5 SCC 103

¶11The Tribunal has noted that no reasons were provided by the accepting authority for the period 1 April 2021 to 30 December 2021 in continuing to retain the grading of "average" even after the reviewing officer had accepted the respondent's representation and upgraded his grading from "good" to "very good".

¶12In so far as the second period in dispute, i.e., 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024 is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that the accepting/countersigning authority had placed reliance on what he perceived to be the unsatisfactory conduct of the respondent for a past period, reflecting clear non application of mind.

¶13The Tribunal has further observed that, if the countersigning or accepting authority chooses to disagree with the reviewing or reporting officer, the disagreement has to be informed by reasons. Equally, any adverse decision on the representation by the officer has to be reasoned. A cryptic rejection is not in compliance with the law.

¶14The Tribunal has also noted that no contemporaneous material was placed before it by the DDA to indicate that there was any inadequacy in the performance of the respondent, as would justify the grading given to the respondent by the accepting/countersigning authority.

¶15For the period 31 December 2021 to 31 March 2022, the Tribunal has further observed that, once the reviewing authority, who had initially graded the respondent as good, himself deemed it appropriate to upgrade the grading to "very good" on the respondent's representation, there was no justification for the accepting/countersigning authority to persist with the grading of "average", without any reasons provided in that regard.

¶16Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the DDA has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

¶17We have heard Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, learned Standing Counsel for the DDA.

¶18Ms. Kaur has submitted that the performance of the respondent was such that justified the gradings given to the respondent by the countersigning authority. She also points out that the principles of natural justice were duly complied with, as the respondent was even granted a personal hearing on the representations made by him. She further submits that, in such cases, Courts and Tribunal are expected to adopt a stance of circumspection not to interfere with the gradings given by the officers who would be best equipped to decide on the performance of the officer concerned.

¶19As the Tribunal has correctly observed, there is no gainsaying the position that there is a degree of inherent restraint on judicial interference in the matter of gradings given in ACRs or APARs. At the same time, such gradings can perilously affect the career of an officer, and the Supreme Court has, time and again, emphasised the importance which is to be accorded while granting such gradings and the responsibility of the officer entailed with the task of doing so.

¶20The following passages from Yamuna Shankar Mishra expound the legal position clearly: "4. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa7, this Court underlined the need to write confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner either commenting/downgrading the conduct, character, efficiency or integrity of the officer in that behalf. It is stated in para 11 that from the year 1973-74, the performance of the duty by the appellant therein was consistently as "satisfactory" to "fair" except for the year 1987-88 in which year he dropped down suddenly as an average or below average teacher. In that behalf it was held that "when he was a responsible teacher and he had cordial relations with the student community, and was taking pains to impart lessons to the students, would it be believable that he avoids to take classes and drops down "if not watched"? When anterior to or subsequent to 1987-88 he was a man of ability and integrity, the same whether would become "below average" only for the Academic Year 1987-88 without discernible reasons, it would speak volumes about the objectivity of assessment by the reporting officer i.e. the Principal. This conduct is much to be desired. This case would establish as a stark reality that writing confidential reports bears onerous responsibility on the reporting officer to eschew his subjectivity and personal prejudices or proclivity or predilections and to make objective assessment. It is needless to emphasise that the career prospects of a subordinate officer/employee largely depends upon the work and character assessment by the reporting officer. The latter should adopt fair, objective, dispassionate and constructive commends/comments in estimating or assessing the character, ability, integrity and responsibility displayed by the officer/employee concerned during the relevant period for the above objectives if not strictly adhered to in making an honest assessment, the prospect and career of the subordinate officer would be put to great jeopardy. The reporting officer is bound to lose his credibility in the eyes of his subordinates and fail to command respect and work from them. The constitutional and statutory safeguards given to the government employees largely became responsible to display callousness and disregard of the discharge of their duties and make it impossible for the superior or controlling officers to extract legitimate work from them. The writing of the confidentials is contributing to make the subordinates work at least to some extent. Therefore, writing the confidential reports objectively and constructively and communication thereof at the earliest would pave way for amends 7 (1994) 28 ATC 443 by erring subordinate officers or to improve the efficiency in service. At the same time, the subordinate employee/officer should dedicate to do hard work and duty; assiduity in the discharge of the duty, honesty with integrity in performance thereof which alone would earn his usefulness in retention of his service. Both would contribute to improve excellence in service. In that case, on account of the vague remarks made for the year 1987-88, the appellant therein was compulsorily retired from service. This Court, after looking into the entire record, set aside the order. … In Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress8, to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member, the Constitution Bench had held that the Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a public servant would inevitably create a sense of insecurity. The unbridled wide discretionary powers would conceivably be abused. Thereby this Court laid emphasis that: "… An assurance of security of service to a public employee is an essential requisite for efficiency and incorruptibility of public administration. It is also an assurance to take independent drive and initiative in the discharge of the public duties to actuate the goals of social justice set down in the Constitution." In para 275 at pp. 740-41, it is further pointed out that: "… Courts should take note of actualities of life that persons actuated to corrupt practices are capable to manoeuvre with higher echelons in diverse ways and also camouflage their activities by becoming sycophants or cronies to the superior officers. Sincere, honest and devoted subordinate officers are unlikely to lick the boots of the corrupt superior officer. They develop a sense of self-pride for their honesty, integrity and apathy and inertia towards the corrupt and tend to undermine or show signs of disrespect or disregard towards them. Thereby, they not only become inconvenient to the corrupt officer but also stand as an impediment to the ongoing smooth symphony of corruption at a grave risk to their prospects in career or even to their tenure of office. The term 'efficiency' is an elusive and relative one to the adept capable to be applied in diverse circumstances. If a superior officer develops liking towards sycophant, though corrupt, he would tolerate him and find him to be efficient and pay encomiums and corruption in such cases stand no impediment. When he finds a sincere, devoted and honest officer to be inconvenient, it is easy to cast him/her off by writing confidential reports with delightfully vague language imputing to be 'not up to the mark', 'wanting public relations' etc. At times they may be termed to be 'security 8 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 risk' (to their activities). Thus, they spoil the career of the honest, sincere and devoted officers. Instances either way are galore in this regard. Therefore, one would be circumspect, pragmatic and realistic to these actualities of life while angulating constitutional validity of wide, arbitrary, uncanalised and unbridled discretionary power of dismissal vested in an appropriate authority either by a statute or a statutory rule."

¶5In State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, this Court pointed out that: "… The object of writing the confidential report is twofold, i.e., to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. This Court in Delhi Transport Corpn. pointed out the pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to lack of objectives by the controlling officer. Confidential and character reports should, therefore, be written by superior officers higher above the cadres. The officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with the highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. Therefore, they should be written by a superior officer of high rank. Who are such high rank officers is for the appellants to decide. The appellants have to prescribe the officer competent to write the confidentials. There should be another higher officer in rank above the officer who has written confidential report to review such report. The appointing authority or any equivalent officer would be competent to approve the confidential reports or character rolls. This procedure would be fair and reasonable. The reports thus written would form the basis for consideration for promotion. The procedure presently adopted is clearly illegal, unfair and unjust." In U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain9, this Court had held that while writing the confidential reports, if the officials were to be downgraded from the previous reports, 9 (1996) 33 ATC 217 "… As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All that is required by the authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one-time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be communicated as such. It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam, we do not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court."

¶6In Sukhdeo v. Commr. Amravati Division10 , this Court has pointed out that: "It is settled law that when the Government resorts to compulsorily retire a government servant, the entire record of service, particularly, in the last period of service is required to be closely scrutinised and the power would be reasonably exercised. In State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, this Court had held that the controlling officer while writing confidential and character roll report, should be a superior officer higher above the cadres of the officer whose confidential reports are written. Such officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudice whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility to inculcate in the officers devotion to duty, honesty and integrity so as to improve excellence of the individual officer, lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public 10 1996 SCC (L&S) 1141 service. In that case it was pointed out that confidential reports written and submitted by the officer of the same cadre and adopted without any independent scrutiny and assessment by the committee was held to be illegal. In this case, the power exercised is illegal and it is not expected of from that high responsible officer who made the remarks. When an officer makes the remarks he must eschew making vague remarks causing jeopardy to the service of the subordinate officer. He must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and give necessary particulars when he seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career prospect and service were in jeopardy. In this case, the controlling officer has not used due diligence in making remarks. It would be salutary that the controlling officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement. In spite of the opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be an obvious fact and would form material basis in support of the adverse remarks. It should also be mentioned that he had given prior opportunity in writing for improvement and yet was not availed of so that it would form part of the record."

¶7It would, thus, be clear that the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-A(j) enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. The officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It should be founded upon facts or circumstances. Though sometimes, it may not be part of the record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidentials should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it corrected by appropriate representation to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and standard of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty, efficiency and devotion." (Emphasis supplied)

¶21We are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in the approach that it has adopted and the final opinion at which it has arrived.

¶22The accepting/counter signing authority has given no justification for continuing to retain the grading of "average" for the period 1 April 2021 to 30 December 2021, even after the reviewing authority had accepted the respondent's representation and upgraded his grading to "very good". We may note, in this regard, that even while entering "average" as the overall gradings in the first instance, the accepting/counter signing authority provided no independent reasons but merely concurred with the view of the reviewing authority. If, therefore, even after the reviewing authority had upgraded the gradings given by him to "very good", the accepting authority had decided to continue with the gradings of "average", the decision had to be informed by reasons. No such reasons being forthcoming, and no other cognate material being before the Tribunal on the basis of which a grading of "average" could be sustained, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the overall grading of "average" granted to the respondent in his APAR for the period 1 April 2021 to 30 December 2021 and restoring the grading granted by the reviewing authority consequent to acceptance of the respondent's representation.

¶23In so far as the second period of 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024 is concerned, the position is even worse. The accepting/counter signing authority entered the grading of "good" on the basis of what he regarded as unsatisfactory past performance of the respondent in the South Zone which, according to him, was not up to the mark.

¶24This is clearly reflective of total non-application of mind and basic want of knowledge of how to enter gradings in ACRs. It is well settled that performance of an officer, for grading him in his ACRs/APARs, has to relate to the period under consideration in the ACRs/APARs. The past performance of the officer can form no part of the consideration of the reporting, reviewing or countersigning Authority.

¶25"A", in "ACRs", stands for "Annual". ACRs are, therefore, written annually, and have to relate to the performance of the officer during the year for which the ACR is being written.

¶26No independent reason was provided by the Accepting/Counter Signing authority for the overall grading of "good" granted to the respondent for the period 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024.

¶27The rejections of the respondent's representations were also completely unreasoned.

¶28In these circumstances, given the law declared in the judgments cited supra, as well as the reasons provided by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment with which we entirely agree, we do not find this to be a case deserving of interference within the parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶29The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J. OCTOBER 7, 2026 dsn

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010484402026 + DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel with Mr. Soumit Ganguli, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Kamlendu Pandey, Mr. Siddhanth Makhloga, Advs. versus CHHANVEER .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA