CHANDAN KUSHWAHA vs COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA on 30 October 2026

1. Comptrol Through Dy O/o CAG o New Delhi

2. The Direct Finance and Shamnath M

3. The Dy. D O/o The Dir Finance and Shamnath M

4. Jitendra K Senior Audi O/o The Dir Finance and Shamnath M

(By Advocat

CENTRAL ADMINISTRAT PRINCIPAL BENCH, N O.A. No. 4320/2 This the 30th day of Oct Chhabilendra Roul, Member ri Rajveer Singh Verma, Memb andan Kushwaha (Assistant Audi e about 37 years Sh. Bhaiya Ram Kushwaha G 129, CPWD Quarters, Nanak uth Moti Bagh, Delhi 110021

ate: Mr. Sudhanwesh Kumar Bha ar Versus ller and Auditor General of India

y. Comptroller and Auditor Gene f India, Pocket 9, Deendayal Up 110124 tor General of Audit, d Communication Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054 Director (AMG-II) (Reviewing O rector General of Audit d Communication Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054 Kumar (Reporting Officer) it Officer (presently working as rector General of Audit d Communication Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054 te: Dr. SS Hooda, Mr. Aayushma

IVE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

tober, 2026 (A) ber (J) it Officer) k Pura

…. Applicant ardwaj, Mr. Kumar Abhinav, a eral (HR) adhyay Marg Officer) an Assistant Audit Officer) … Respondents an Aeron) s

ANJALI NEGI

ANJA LI NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

The pre set asi respond the AP 12.01.20 that, d succeed consiste grading period reduced during under M him and that, su Jitendr the app draws a applica working probabl

ORDER (ORAL

esent OA has been filed by ide the order dated 07 dents have rejected his re PAR grading for the per

024. Learned counsel fo during the period imm ding the aforesaid peri ently graded as 'Outsta g of more than 8. Howe of approximately three m d to 5. Learned counse the relevant period, the Mr. Jitendra Kumar, who d was the Reporting Offic ubsequent to the period u ra Kumar was demoted to plicant. Learned counsel attention to paragraph 4. nt has set out the circum g during the relevant peri le reasons for the sudd

L) y the applicant seeking to 7.08.2026, whereby the epresentation challenging riod from 05.10.2023 to or the applicant submits mediately preceding and iod, the applicant was anding', with numerical ever, for the intervening months, his grading was el further submits that, e applicant was working o was one rank senior to er. It is further submitted under consideration, Mr. o the same rank as that of for the applicant further 9 of the OA, wherein the mstances in which he was iod and has indicated the den downgrading of his o e g o s d s l g s

g o d

f r e s e s ANJALI NEGI

ANJA LI NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

APAR f numeri during commu verbal a the bes his duti expecte aforesa alleges against APAR grading

2. Issu who ap notice. allowed

3. At th that the months graded during from his consistently outs ical grading of 5. It is the relevant period, unication was issued to th advice given to him to imp st of his knowledge, the a ies sincerely and in accor ed of him by the respo id circumstances, learned that the Reporting Offic the applicant and that, was deliberately downg g of 5, adversely affecting h ue notice. Mr. Aayushman ppears for respondents on Learned counsel for the d four weeks’ time to file re his stage, learned counsel e APAR in question perta s and 7 days, whereas as 'Outstanding', with a the periods immediately p tanding performance to a further submitted that, no memorandum or he applicant, nor was any prove his performance. To applicant had discharged rdance with the standards ondents. In view of the d counsel for the applicant cer was personally biased owing to such bias, his graded to a numerical his career prospects. n Aeron, learned counsel n advance service, accepts respondents seeks and is eply. for the applicant submits ains to a short period of 3 the applicant has been a score of more than 8, preceding and succeeding a

r y o d s e t d s l l s s s n

g ANJALI NEGI

ANJA LI NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

the sa circums period degree learned make request take a f reasons 9 of the

4. Lear respond

5. In v counsel the adm to file a from th

6. The represe speakin date of aid period. He further stances, the adverse asses appears to be inexplicabl of prejudice against the d counsel for the applica a fresh representation ting them to reconsider fresh decision thereon, p s and grounds set out by th e OA. rned counsel for the resp dents have no objection if view of the above, with ls for the parties, the pre mission stage itself with th a fresh representation with he date of certified copy of respondents are directe entation of the applicants ng order within a period receipt of such representa submits that, in the sment for the intervening le and may indicate some e applicant. Accordingly, ant seeks permission to n to the respondents, the applicant's case and particularly in light of the he applicant in paragraph pondents states that the such direction be issued. the consent of learned sent OA is disposed of at he liberty to the applicants hin a period of seven days f this order. ed to consider the fresh and pass a reasoned and of eight weeks from the ation. e g e

o

d e h e d t s s h d e ANJALI NEGI

ANJA LI NEGI

Item No. 15 (C-V)

7. We examin the case

8. The MA als costs.

(Rajveer Singh V

Member (J)

an make it emphatically c ned or expressed any opini e. OA is disposed of in the so stands disposed of acc Verma) (Dr. )

OA No. 4320/2026 clear that we have not ion in respect of merits of e above manner. Pending cordingly. No order as to Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A)

t f g o ANJALI NEGI

ANJA LI NEGI