CAT Chandigarh: Uncommunicated Adverse APAR Remarks Cannot Be Used to Deny Financial Upgradation. Adverse or below-benchmark remarks in an Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) can directly block or delay financial upgradation benefits—such as the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme—if the score falls below the required service benchmark.

Case Reference: Original Application No. 60/1291/2017
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
Date of Decision: 23 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Singh Thakur, Member (J), and Hon’ble Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, Member (A)

Can an employee be denied financial upgradation on the basis of adverse remarks recorded in an Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) when those remarks were never properly communicated to the employee?

Can a Reviewing Authority downgrade an employee’s performance assessment without supporting reasons, documentary material or prior communication regarding the alleged deficiencies?

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, considered these important service-law questions in Original Application No. 60/1291/2017, decided on 23 April 2026.

The Tribunal held that the complete APAR had not been communicated to the employee and that the Reviewing Authority’s adverse remarks were unsupported by any documented communication concerning the employee’s performance or conduct.

The Tribunal consequently allowed the Original Application, quashed the orders rejecting the employee’s representation and denying financial upgradation, expunged the challenged adverse remarks and directed reconsideration of the claim for financial upgradation from the date similarly placed juniors had received it.

Brief Facts of the Case

The employee had initially joined the Department of Telecommunications as a Technician in November 1986. Subsequently, through a departmental examination, the employee was appointed as a Junior Telecom Officer in November 2001.

Following the incorporation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the employee was absorbed into the organisation with effect from 1 October 2000.

The organisation introduced an Executive Promotion Policy providing for financial upgradation. The employee was granted financial upgradation from E-1 to E-2.

The next financial upgradation from E-2 to E-3 became due under the applicable policy after completion of the prescribed service period.

However, while other employees, including juniors, were granted financial upgradation, the employee was not considered successful by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

Financial upgradation denied due to adverse APAR

Initially, the employee was informed that the prescribed criteria for financial upgradation had not been fulfilled.

Subsequently, through a communication dated 31 December 2013, the employee was informed that the DPC had dropped the case due to adverse entries in the APAR for the year 2008-09.

The employee contended that these adverse remarks had never been communicated to him and that he had never been given an opportunity to submit a representation against them.

Discovery of the APAR through RTI

The employee sought copies of his ACRs/APARs through an application under the Right to Information Act.

The records were supplied in August 2017, enabling the employee to examine the APAR for 2008-09.

Upon examining the document, the employee noticed that the Reporting Authority had recorded favourable remarks, whereas the Reviewing Authority had made adverse observations concerning his ability to guide staff and extract work from them.

The employee challenged these remarks on the ground that they were unsupported, had not been communicated and had been recorded without any prior advisory, warning or documented indication of deficiencies.

Contentions of the Employee

The employee challenged the adverse APAR remarks and consequential denial of financial upgradation on several grounds:

1. The complete APAR for 2008-09 had not been communicated in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India.
2. No warning, advisory, memorandum or communication regarding the alleged deficiencies had been issued during the relevant reporting period.
3. The Reporting Authority had recorded favourable remarks, whereas the Reviewing Authority had subsequently introduced adverse observations without adequate justification.
4. The adverse remarks were not supported by documentary material or any prior communication regarding deficiencies in performance.
5. The employee had been denied financial upgradation while similarly placed juniors had received the benefit.
6. The representation against the adverse remarks was wrongly rejected as time-barred, even though the employee claimed that he had not been properly informed of the adverse entries.

The employee further contended that merely obtaining a signature on a printed proforma could not substitute the legally required communication of the complete APAR and the opportunity to make an effective representation.

Stand of the Department

The Department opposed the application.

It contended that the employee had signed a certificate stating that he had gone through the APAR for 2008-09 and agreed with the remarks and grading given by the controlling and reviewing authorities.

According to the Department, the employee had been required to submit a representation within 15 days if he disagreed with the remarks. Since the representation was submitted after a considerable delay, it was argued that the same had rightly been rejected as time-barred.

The Department also maintained that the employee had not been recommended by the DPC for financial upgradation because of the adverse APAR entry.

Issues Considered by the Tribunal

The Tribunal identified three principal issues for consideration:

1. Whether the official respondents had communicated the complete APAR to the employee so that he could submit a representation against the adverse remarks.
2. Whether the Reviewing Authority had previously taken cognizance of any default or deficiency in the employee’s work and whether any notice had been issued in this regard.
3. Whether the certificate relied upon by the Department could be treated as valid documentation establishing that the employee had examined the APAR and had no objection to its contents.

Findings and Observations of the Tribunal

After examining the pleadings and the original records, the Tribunal made important observations concerning the communication and recording of adverse APAR remarks.

1. Complete APAR was never communicated

The Tribunal found that the complete APAR for the year 2008-09 had never been communicated to the employee in accordance with the judicial principles laid down in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, reported as 2008 (7) SCC 463.

This was a significant finding because the adverse remarks had subsequently been relied upon by the DPC while denying financial upgradation.

2. No communication regarding deficiencies in performance

The Tribunal observed that the Department could not place on record any communication issued by the Reviewing Authority to the employee regarding his work and conduct.

There was no documentary material establishing that the employee had previously been informed about the alleged deficiencies.

3. Adverse remarks were unsupported by objective material

The Tribunal examined the actual remarks recorded by the Reviewing Authority in the APAR for 2008-09.

The remarks included observations that the official was unable to guide as a team leader and could not extract work from staff.

The Tribunal found that these remarks were opinions that were not supported by any reference to prior communication with the employee or documentation showing how the alleged deficiencies had been identified.

It observed that the remarks were neither advisory nor corrective in nature.

4. Possibility of personal bias or prejudice could not be ruled out

An important observation of the Tribunal was that, in the absence of supporting material or prior communication, the possibility of personal bias or prejudice could not be ruled out while recording such remarks.

The Tribunal emphasised that APAR remarks must be objective and supported by documents, particularly where the Reviewing Authority disagrees with the Reporting Authority.

5. Certificate obtained from the employee was not sufficient

The Tribunal also considered the Department’s reliance on the certificate allegedly signed by the employee, stating that he had examined and accepted the APAR remarks and grading.

The Tribunal framed a specific issue as to whether such certification could be treated as a valid substitute for proper communication of the APAR.

Its findings established that the complete APAR had not been communicated in accordance with the applicable judicial principles.

The Department could not rely upon the certificate to overcome the deficiencies identified in the communication and recording of the adverse remarks.

Legal Principle: Communication of APAR Entries

The judgment refers to the Supreme Court decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, 2008 (7) SCC 463.

The principle relied upon is that entries in an employee’s performance appraisal, including entries that may affect career progression, must be communicated so that the employee has an effective opportunity to make a representation.

The importance of communication is particularly significant when an APAR entry is subsequently used to deny promotion or financial upgradation.

The Tribunal also referred to the principles concerning objective assessment and fair recording of performance remarks, including the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra, JT 1997 (4) SC 1.

The decision reinforces the importance of fairness, transparency and objectivity in the preparation and review of service appraisal records.

Final Decision of the Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, allowed the Original Application.

The Tribunal passed the following directions:

1. The impugned orders dated 28 December 2016, 16 November 2013 and 31 December 2013 were quashed.
2. The adverse remarks recorded by the Reviewing Authority in the APAR for 2008-09, which were challenged in the Original Application, were expunged.
3. The Department was directed to consider the employee’s claim for financial upgradation from E-2 to E-3 with effect from the date on which his juniors had been granted the corresponding grade.
4. If found eligible under the applicable procedure, the employee was to be granted the financial upgradation along with notional benefits for the past period.
5. The exercise was directed to be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This decision is important for employees in government departments and public sector organisations whose promotion or financial upgradation is affected by adverse ACR/APAR entries.

The judgment highlights the following principles:

First: Communication of APAR is essential. An employee must be properly informed of appraisal entries that may adversely affect career progression and must have an effective opportunity to represent against them.

Second: Adverse remarks must be objective. Performance observations should not be unsupported opinions. They must have a reasonable basis in the employee’s work record and relevant material.

Third: Reviewing Authorities must act fairly. Where a Reviewing Authority makes adverse observations or departs from the Reporting Authority’s assessment, the decision should be supported by objective material and reasons.

Fourth: A procedural formality cannot replace meaningful communication. A certificate or signature cannot automatically cure the failure to communicate the complete APAR in accordance with applicable legal principles.

Fifth: Uncommunicated entries should not unfairly prejudice career progression. Where an adverse entry is found legally unsustainable, consequential decisions based on that entry may also require reconsideration.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Can an employee challenge an adverse APAR entry if it was never communicated?

Yes. An employee may challenge an adverse APAR entry where the required communication and opportunity to represent have not been provided, subject to the applicable service rules and limitation requirements.

Q2. Can an adverse APAR entry be used to deny financial upgradation?

An APAR entry may be relevant to a promotion or financial upgradation assessment under the applicable policy. However, it must be recorded and communicated in accordance with the applicable legal and administrative requirements.

Q3. Is a signed certificate accepting APAR remarks always sufficient?

Not necessarily. In this case, the Tribunal examined whether the certificate could substitute for proper communication of the complete APAR and found that the required communication had not taken place.

Q4. What should an employee do after discovering an adverse APAR through RTI?

The employee may examine the relevant service rules and applicable instructions, obtain the complete appraisal record and submit a representation before the competent authority. The appropriate legal remedy will depend on the facts, applicable timelines and service regulations.

Q5. What relief did CAT Chandigarh grant?

The Tribunal quashed the impugned orders, expunged the challenged adverse remarks and directed reconsideration of the employee’s claim for financial upgradation from the date similarly placed juniors received it. If found eligible, notional benefits for the past period were also to be granted.

Q6. Within what period was the Department directed to act?

The Tribunal directed completion of the exercise within 12 weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Conclusion

The decision reinforces the principle that performance appraisal records must be prepared and reviewed fairly, objectively and transparently.

An adverse APAR entry should not become a tool for denying an employee career progression when the employee was never properly informed of the remarks and the Department cannot substantiate the observations with relevant material.

For employees facing denial of promotion, MACP or financial upgradation on the basis of disputed ACR/APAR entries, this judgment provides an important reference on the legal significance of proper communication, objective assessment and the right to make an effective representation.

Case Reference: Original Application No. 60/1291/2017, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, decided on 23 April 2026.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes only. It is based on the judgment discussed above and should not be treated as legal advice. The applicability of the decision depends on the relevant service rules, promotion policy and facts of each individual case.

More on 99888-17966