Writ Dismissed as Time-Barred Memorial Against APAR Not Relaxed by DoPT | HC

Case Details: Dr.V.Sraman, I.T.S. vs. Union of India - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 362 (HC-Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Ramesh & V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ.
• G. Rajagopalan, Sr. Counsel for the Appellant.
• A.R.L. Sundaresan, ASG & Dr G. Babu, SPC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, a Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, had adverse APAR entries and below-par gradings for 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. His representations for review were rejected in 2011 and 2014. About four years later, he submitted a memorial to the Commerce Minister, who upgraded the grading to outstanding and ordered the expunction of the adverse remarks.

The Department note files recorded a six-month bar on memorials under the DoPT OM No. 21011/1/77-Estt. dated 30.01.1978 read with OM No.21011/8/89-Estt.(A) dated 06.03.1989 and noted that the memorial was filed seven years after rejection for 2008-2009 and more than four years after rejection for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

Despite, the Minister recommending review and condonation of the six-month limit, the matter was referred to the DoPT; on 08.08.2019, DoPT stated that, as per existing instructions on ACR/APAR, no provision for appeal/representation lay after the competent authority had decided representation from 2008-2009 onwards, and asked the Ministry to re-examine.

Further, by order dated 28.09.2020, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s request for restoration of seniority and retrospective promotion/NFU. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s application.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the memorial preferred by the petitioner was barred by the limitation and in the absence of any relaxation of the limitation period by the DoPT, condonation of delay by the Commerce Minister could not be legally sustained, and hence, the consequential rejection order, which was impugned before the CAT, could not be fault with. Therefore, the Writ Petition lacked merit and was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Commandant V.S.Shekhawat v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9942 (para 28)
• State of U.P. v. K.N.Misra AIR 1974 SCC 87 (para 30) distinguished
• Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.374 of 2021 dated 31.01.2023 (para 31) affirmed

List of Cases Referred to

• A.Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras [1970] 1 SCC 443 (para 2.4)
• State of U.P. v. K.N.Misra AIR 1974 SCC 87 (para 2.5)
• Commandant V.S.Shekhawat v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9942 (para 2.6)
• Dev Dutt v. Union of India 2008 taxmann.com 10745 (SC) (para 29)
• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India [2013] 4 taxmann.com 1298 (SC) (para 29).