Grading of employee cannot be reduced only because he is wheelchair-bound: Delhi High Court

Vijay Mohan

Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 16

Observing that superior officers should write annual confidential reports (ACR) in a fair, objective and dispassionate manner, the Delhi High Court has held that the performance of a disabled employee who has been working diligently cannot be downgraded only because he was wheelchair bound.

An Assistant Sub-Inspector employed as a dental technician in the Border Security Force (BSF), while returning to his place of posting in Punjab after leave, had met with an accident in 2014, which severely affected the lower part of his body.

A medial board declared him a paraplegic and his disability was assessed at 100 per cent. However, despite the disability, he continued to diligently serve the BSF and was always awarded ‘very good’ grading in his ACR till 2016-17.

However, in his next three ACRs, his performance was downgraded to only ‘good’. This, according to his petition, affected his chance to get promotion under the modified assured career progression scheme. He represented against the ACRs, but to no avail. In 2021, he was discharged from service on medical grounds.

He averred that the grading of ‘good’ was wholly unsustainable as his reporting officer, despite noticing the fact that irrespective of his disability, he was working diligently, had downgraded him as ‘good’ only because he was a paraplegic and wheelchair bound. The remarks in his last three ACRs mentioned that he is a paraplegic and needs assistance.

He contended that he had been downgraded only because he was suffering from 100 percent disability and not because of any shortcoming in his performance which was evident from the fact that there is no comment/ or observation in any of the three ACRS that his performance had dipped in any manner. Nor was he ever issued any warning letter or a show cause notice.

Expressing anguish over the manner in which the petitioner’s ACRs have been recorded by the reporting officer and subsequently approved by the reviewing and accepting officers, the Bench said that the respondents, despite being well aware that the petitioner in spite of 100 disability was continuing to sincerely perform the work assigned to him, were clearly swayed by the fact that he was using a wheelchair and needed assistance.

“In our considered view, this approach of the petitioner’s reporting officer as also the reviewing and accepting officers was not at all in consonance with the duty cast upon them under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to encourage persons suffering from disabilities, the Bench said in its order of July 11.

No doubt every reporting officer is expected to assess an employee on the basis of his actual performance, this, however, does not imply that an employee who was suffering from disability should be downgraded only because he was working on a wheelchair, the Bench remarked.