Rajasthan High Court expunges ‘average’ and ‘doubtful integrity’ remarks from civil judge’s APAR

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed adverse remarks recorded in a Civil Judge’s Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2010, holding that a ‘Doubtful Integrity’ entry recorded against the express grading of the Reporting Officer and an ‘Average’ downgrade purportedly made by a Chief Justice who had already superannuated cannot be sustained.

A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Ravi Chirania, in a judgment authored by Justice Chirania, expunged the Part-I ‘Average’ grading and the Part-II ‘Doubtful Integrity’ remark recorded against the petitioner, directing that the entries be read as ‘Good’ and ‘Not Doubtful’ respectively for the relevant period.

Setting aside the impugned downgrade, the bench observed:

“This Court is surprised to note that Hon’ble the Chief Justice who could not make any remark for the year 2009 due to his superannuation (i.e., in the previous year), then question comes who actually recorded the remark in the year 2012 for the period 2010 Part-I (01.01.2010 to 08.06.2010) when the same Hon’ble Chief Justice had already retired on 30/10/2010 & remark was recorded in the year 2012. To be more specific, when the same Chief Justice had already retired when APAR for the year 2009 was to be recorded, then how could he record in the APAR of year 2010 Part-I that the officer is ‘Average’ more so when the date of recording the remarks is of the year 2012.”

The writ petition under Article 226 had been moved by the judge at the relevant time was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Tizara, District Alwar. The petitioner had assailed a communication dated 14.06.2012 by which adverse remarks in his APAR for the year 2010 (Part-I ‘Average’, Part-II ‘Doubtful Integrity’) were intimated to him, as well as an order dated 26.02.2014 by which his representation against those entries had been rejected. He sought a direction that his APAR be assessed as ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ and that he be granted all consequential benefits including seniority.

Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. S. Hora, assisted by Ms. Varuni Agarwal and Mr. T. C. Sharma, submitted that the impugned remarks had no basis in any complaint, evidence or record, and that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded before downgrading the petitioner from ‘Good’ to ‘Average’ or before recording his integrity as ‘Doubtful’ for the first time. Counsel placed reliance on S.T. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka (2007) 9 SCC 436, M.S. Bindra v. Union of India (1998) 7 SCC 310, Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/1991, decided 27.02.1997), Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 and State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra (1997) 4 SCC 7.

The petitioner had also pointed to a circular of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan dated 05.06.2008, adopted by the High Court, on the procedure to be followed before recording adverse entries — a contention countered by the respondents on the basis of a Full Court Resolution dated 23/24.09.2011.

Senior Advocate Virendra Lodha, assisted by Mr. Ankit Rathore, appeared for the High Court of Rajasthan through its Registrar General.

Examining the record, the bench underscored the central role of the District Judge as the reporting officer:

“The District Judge is the first and best person to record favorable and adverse remarks against the Officer in his APAR as he only has occasion to watch minutely the daily and overall performance of an Officer.”

Applying the principles laid down in Himmat Singh (supra), the Court reasoned that when the Reporting Officer had graded the petitioner as ‘Good’ and had not found his integrity to be doubtful, the recording of a contrary ‘Average’ grading and a ‘Doubtful Integrity’ entry by the Accepting Authority — without any supporting adverse material on record — was “highly unjustified” and “illegal”. The bench observed that where the Reporting Officer had not found the integrity as doubtful and there was no adverse record, a serious remark to that effect could not be sustained.

The Court accordingly held that the APAR of the petitioner for 2010 Part-I be read as ‘Good’ as reported by the Reporting Officer, and that the integrity entry for 2010 Part-II be read as ‘Not Doubtful’. It further held that since Part-I was to be read as ‘Good’ and there was nothing on record warranting an ‘Average’ grading, the APAR for Part-II must equally be read as ‘Good’.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the order dated 26.02.2014 rejecting the petitioner’s representation and directed that all consequential benefits be granted to him “as if the impugned adverse remarks were not recorded”. No order as to costs was passed.

The judgment was reserved on 27.03.2026 and pronounced on 14.05.2026.

Title: Rakesh Goyal v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur, through its Registrar General

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5564/2014

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. S. S. Hora, assisted by Ms. Varuni Agarwal and Mr. T. C. Sharma

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ankit Rathore

Click here to read/download order