As per the settled law, recording of ACRs is within the legitimate domain of the competent administrative authorities; there is very limited scope for judicial intervention in such cases. Whereas, previously according to the prevailing DOP&T instructions, only adverse remarks were to be communicated; as a sequel to the decision of the Honble Apex Courts in the matter of Dev Dutt, all remarks as affect an employee adversely in grant of service benefits are required to be communicated. This is on the principles of natural justice so that the affected official does get an opportunity to represent his case before the authorities. However, once such remarks are communicated and the representation is considered by competent authorities, a further probe into the matter is not ordinarily called forth
2) it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere in recording of ACRs, particularly when the court does not have the benefit of knowing the conduct and the manner in which officer concerned has performed his duties. In the case of Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chhabra vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 441, the Apex Court in para 13 has held as under:-
....According to us, neither the High Court nor this Court can moderate the appraisal and the grading of the appellant for a particular year. While exercising the power of judicial review, a court shall not venture to assess and appraise the merit or the grading of an officer.....
Therefore, we do not find it expedient or advisable to tread over this forbidden territory, and refrain from making any assessment on the remarks made in the APAR of the applicant, thereby leaving this issue open.
