APAR Downgrade Valid If Deficiencies Persist Despite Advisories | BSF Instructions-2012 | Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has affirmed that superior officers in the Border Security Force may lawfully downgrade an employee’s Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) even when the Reporting Officer has awarded a higher grade, provided there is no evidence of malice, arbitrariness, or procedural violation under the BSF Instructions-2012. This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative discretion in performance evaluation is entitled to judicial restraint unless clearly tainted.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, a member of the Border Security Force (BSF), challenged adverse remarks and a reduced grading in his APAR for the period 1st April, 2022 to 31st March, 2023. The Reporting Officer had assessed him as ‘very good’ with a score of 6.23 marks, citing sincerity and hard work. However, the Reviewing Officer downgraded the rating to 5.46 marks, citing persistent deficiencies in interpersonal relations, discipline, initiative, and responsiveness to advisories. The Accepting Authority concurred with the Reviewing Officer’s assessment. The petitioner’s appeal to the competent authority was also dismissed.

Key Facts

• The petitioner received three written advisories on 07.01.2023, 08.01.2023, and 09.01.2023, addressing issues of casual attitude, poor relations with seniors/subordinates, and lack of initiative.
• The petitioner submitted explanations in response to the advisories, which were deemed unsatisfactory by the Reviewing Officer.
• The Reporting Officer did not mention the advisories in the APAR and awarded a ‘very good’ rating.
• The Reviewing Officer, relying on the petitioner’s repeated failure to improve despite advisories, concluded that the petitioner’s conduct warranted a lower grade.
• The petitioner claimed the advisories were issued in quick succession as a formality and that he had complied with them.
• The BSF Instructions-2012 permit adverse remarks in APAR only if an officer fails to improve despite prior warnings.

Procedural History

• 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023: Reporting period for the impugned APAR.
• 07.01.2023, 08.01.2023, 09.01.2023: Three advisories issued to the petitioner.
• March 2023: APAR prepared by Reporting Officer with ‘very good’ rating (6.23 marks).
• April 2023: Reviewing Officer downgraded rating to 5.46 marks and recorded adverse remarks.
• May 2023: Accepting Authority upheld the Reviewing Officer’s assessment.
• June 2023: Petitioner’s appeal to competent authority dismissed.
• 2024: Writ Petition (WPA 22099 of 2024) filed before the Calcutta High Court.
• 18.03.2026: Hearing concluded.
• 01.04.2026: Judgment delivered.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• The Reporting Officer, having direct and continuous observation of the petitioner’s work, was best placed to assess performance.
• The absence of advisory references in the Reporting Officer’s report implies the petitioner had improved.
• The Reviewing Officer had no firsthand knowledge of the petitioner’s daily conduct.
• The three advisories were issued in rapid succession and were procedural formalities, not genuine attempts at reform.
• The Instructions-2012 require that adverse remarks be based on persistent failure to improve, not on isolated or hastily issued advisories.

For the Respondent (Union of India)

• The Reviewing Officer’s assessment was based on a holistic review of the petitioner’s conduct over the entire reporting period.
• The petitioner was verbally counselled before formal advisories were issued.
• The explanations provided by the petitioner were found unsatisfactory.
• APAR is a period-specific assessment; prior or subsequent improvement cannot override the record of performance during the assessed period.
• The Instructions-2012 permit superior officers to override the Reporting Officer’s view if they have reasonable grounds to believe the assessment is inaccurate.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought deletion of the adverse remarks and restoration of the ‘very good’ rating (6.23 marks) as awarded by the Reporting Officer.

The Legal Issue

Can a Reviewing Officer lawfully downgrade an APAR rating below that of the Reporting Officer when the latter has not recorded any adverse remarks, and the former relies on prior advisories and perceived lack of improvement?

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner relied on State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 7, arguing that confidential assessments must be objective, fair, and based on personal observation. He contended that the Reviewing Officer, lacking direct exposure to his daily duties, could not override the Reporting Officer’s assessment without proof of malice or arbitrariness. He emphasized that the Instructions-2012 require that advisories be followed by a reasonable opportunity for improvement before being reflected in APAR, and that the three advisories issued in three days were not indicative of sustained deficiency.

For the Respondent

The Union argued that APAR is a multi-tiered process designed to ensure accuracy through layered review. The Reviewing Officer is empowered to reassess performance based on broader institutional knowledge and documented conduct. The petitioner’s repeated failure to respond meaningfully to advisories, coupled with persistent deficiencies in discipline and teamwork, justified the downgrade. The Instructions-2012 do not mandate automatic acceptance of the Reporting Officer’s view; they permit, and indeed require, corrective intervention where performance remains unsatisfactory.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the BSF Instructions-2012, particularly the guidelines for writing APAR. It noted that the Instructions explicitly state that the Reporting Officer’s role is to counsel and guide the subordinate throughout the reporting period, and that adverse remarks should only be included if, despite warnings, the officer has not improved. The Court emphasized that the purpose of APAR is not punitive but developmental - to enhance efficiency and morale within the Force.

"The responsibility of the initiating officer... should not be deferred to the time of initiation of APAR, so that adverse remarks, if any, do not come as a surprise to the officer reported upon."

The Court acknowledged that differences in assessment between Reporting and Reviewing Officers are inevitable due to differing perspectives. However, it held that such differences are not per se illegal. Judicial review of APAR is limited to cases of malice, bias, arbitrariness, or perversity. The Court found no evidence that the Reviewing Officer acted with improper motive or ignored procedural safeguards.

The Court further observed that the petitioner’s claim of compliance with advisories could not override the Reviewing Officer’s considered opinion that improvement had not been sustained. The absence of advisory references in the Reporting Officer’s report did not automatically validate the higher grade; it merely indicated that the Reporting Officer chose not to include them, possibly due to a belief in improvement - a view the superior officer was entitled to challenge based on broader evidence.

The Court also cited Yamuna Shanker Misra to underscore that courts must not substitute their own judgment for that of administrative authorities in performance assessments unless there is a clear legal infirmity. The petitioner’s request for judicial intervention was therefore rejected.

The Verdict

The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the APAR grading of 5.46 marks and the adverse remarks recorded by the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Authority. No costs were awarded. The petitioner was directed to take the assessment in the spirit of institutional feedback and work towards improving the noted deficiencies.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Administrative Discretion in APAR Is Presumed Valid

• Practitioners must now establish clear evidence of malice, bias, or procedural violation to challenge APAR downgrades - mere disagreement with the grading is insufficient.
• The burden shifts to the petitioner to demonstrate that the Reviewing Officer’s assessment was irrational or based on irrelevant considerations.

Advisories Must Be Evaluated in Context, Not Quantity

• Issuing multiple advisories in quick succession does not automatically render them invalid; the key is whether the officer failed to improve despite them.
• Courts will not second-guess whether advisories were issued as a formality - the focus is on the outcome and the reviewing officer’s reasoned conclusion.

Reporting Officer’s Assessment Is Not Final

• A higher rating by the Reporting Officer does not bind superior authorities. The multi-tiered review system is designed to correct inaccuracies.

• The absence of adverse remarks in the Reporting Officer’s report does not preclude their inclusion later if superior officers have credible grounds to believe performance remains deficient.

• Practitioners representing government servants must now focus on proving procedural irregularities or subjective bias, not merely on the disparity in ratings.

• Departments must ensure that advisories are documented, followed by a reasonable time for improvement, and that the rationale for overriding a Reporting Officer’s view is clearly recorded in the APAR file.