New Delhi: Justice Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (Judicial) of the Delhi Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), has recused himself from hearing a matter filed by 2002-batch senior Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of the Uttarakhand cadre, Sanjiv Chaturvedi.
The latest recusal came after the Tribunal heard the matter for some time. The case concerns a challenge to a November 29, 2021 communication of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, prescribing various authorities for disposal of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of IFS officers.
The Tribunal’s order dated September 21 records that Justice Rajveer Singh Verma recused himself from the matter and directed the Registry to list it before an appropriate Bench.
The order does not state any specific reason for the recusal.
Tribunal Order on Sanjiv Chaturvedi’s Application
According to the Tribunal’s order, the matter was still under Registry objections when it came up for hearing.
The applicant, appearing in person, was informed about the objection raised by the Registry but insisted that the matter be heard.
The order records that Chaturvedi referred to the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007, particularly the definitions contained in Clauses 2(a), 2(j) and 2(k), which deal with:
- APAR Accepting Authority
- APAR Reporting Authority
- APAR Reviewing Authority
He also referred to the November 29, 2021 communication issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, concerning authorities prescribed for disposal of APARs of Indian Forest Service officers.
However, the Tribunal noted that the Original Application (O.A.) was still under objection. One of the objections raised by the Registry was that the representation made by the applicant was premature.
Applicant Directed to Confine Submissions to the Issue
The Tribunal further recorded that the applicant continued making submissions that, according to the Bench, were not connected with the issue involved in the O.A.
He was repeatedly directed to confine his submissions to the issue before the Tribunal. However, he continued referring to and relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court.
The order then records:
“After hearing the matter for some time, Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J), recuses himself from hearing this matter.”
Following the recusal, the Registry was directed to list the matter before an appropriate Bench and notify the parties.
What Is the Case About?
The present matter relates to the APAR system for Indian Forest Service officers in Uttarakhand.
The applicant has referred to the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007, as well as the Uttarakhand Government’s November 2021 communication prescribing the authorities responsible for dealing with APARs.
The matter is also being linked to a Supreme Court ruling delivered in May 2025, according to the information provided in relation to the case.
The Tribunal, however, has not recorded any finding on the merits of the applicant’s challenge in the order concerning the recusal.
17th Recusal Cited in Chaturvedi’s Cases
The latest development has been described in the material provided as the 17th judicial recusal involving cases concerning Sanjiv Chaturvedi.
The recusal history cited in the report comprises:
- 2 Supreme Court judges
- 4 Nainital High Court judges
- 9 CAT judges, including the CAT Chairman
- 2 judges from the district judiciary
The claim that this constitutes a record in the judicial history of the country is a characterization made in the material provided and is not established as an official nationwide judicial statistic by the Tribunal’s order.
The latest order itself only records Justice Rajveer Singh Verma’s recusal and does not provide a reason for it.
Earlier Recusals by Nainital High Court Judges
The recusal history cited in connection with Chaturvedi includes several judges of the Nainital High Court.
In September-October 2025, Justice Alok Verma and Justice Ravindra Maithani reportedly recused themselves from hearing a contempt case filed by Chaturvedi against CAT Members and the Registry.
The case concerned alleged wilful disobedience of a stay order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court.
Earlier, two other Nainital High Court judges had also recused themselves:
Justice Manoj Tiwari — February 2024
Justice Manoj Tiwari recused himself from a case concerning Chaturvedi’s request for summoning documents from the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) in relation to his central deputation.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal — May 2023
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal recused himself from a case concerning the summoning of documents relating to an anti-corruption investigation conducted by Chaturvedi while serving as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), AIIMS. The matter was connected with his Appraisal Report.
According to the material provided, none of the four Nainital High Court judges cited a reason in their recusal orders.
CAT Judges Who Recused From Chaturvedi Matters
Several recusals have also been cited from the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Harvinder Oberai and B Anand — February 2025
A CAT Division Bench comprising Harvinder Oberai and B Anand recused itself from hearing a case concerning the alleged downgrading of Chaturvedi’s Appraisal Report when he was serving as CVO, AIIMS, Delhi.
The report states that the Appraisal Report had been downgraded by then Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda.
The Bench reportedly did not cite a reason and directed the Registry not to list Chaturvedi’s cases before it in future.
Justice Rajeev Joshi — January 2025
In January 2025, CAT Judge Justice Rajeev Joshi reportedly recused himself from hearing Chaturvedi’s case concerning his central deputation to the Lokpal.
Manish Garg and Chchabilendra Roul — November 2023
In November 2023, a CAT Bench comprising Manish Garg and Chchabilendra Roul also recused itself from hearing Chaturvedi’s case concerning the summoning of documents from the ACC regarding his empanelment at the Joint Secretary level.
Justice R.N. Singh — February 2021
In February 2021, CAT Delhi judge Justice R.N. Singh recused himself from a matter concerning Chaturvedi’s central deputation.
Justice L. Narasimhan Reddy — March 2019
In March 2019, then Chairman of CAT Delhi, Justice L. Narasimhan Reddy, recused himself from cases relating to various transfer petitions filed by Chaturvedi.
The material states that the judge referred to certain “unfortunate developments” while recusing himself.
Supreme Court Recusals in Chaturvedi Matter
The history also includes two recusals at the Supreme Court level.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi — November 2013
In November 2013, then Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjan Gogoi recused himself from hearing a case filed by Chaturvedi seeking a CBI investigation into the alleged role of then Haryana Chief Minister Bhupender Singh Hooda and other senior politicians and bureaucrats in corruption-related matters reportedly exposed by Chaturvedi.
The matter also involved allegations concerning his harassment.
Justice U.U. Lalit — August 2016
In August 2016, then Supreme Court judge Justice U.U. Lalit also recused himself from hearing the matter.
District Judiciary Recusals
The recusal history cited in the material also includes judges from the district judiciary.
ACJM Neha Kushwaha — April 2025
In April 2025, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Kushwaha recused herself from a defamation case filed by Chaturvedi against CAT judge Manish Garg.
The material states that she cited her “previous family relations” with another CAT judge, D.S. Mahra.
Shimla Court Judge — April 2018
In April 2018, a Shimla court judge reportedly recused himself from hearing a defamation case filed by Vineet Chowdhary, then Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh, against Chaturvedi.
The case was filed after Chaturvedi had sent a status report concerning alleged financial irregularities investigated by him as CVO, AIIMS, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
Timeline of Judicial Recusals
For clarity, the major recusals mentioned in the material can be summarized as follows:
Latest CAT Order Directs Fresh Listing
With Justice Rajveer Singh Verma recusing himself, the matter will now be placed before another appropriate Bench.
The Tribunal’s concluding direction states:
“The Registry is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench and notify the same.”
The order does not adjudicate the substantive dispute concerning the APAR framework. It records the Registry objection, the submissions made by the applicant, the recusal of Justice Rajveer Singh Verma and the direction for fresh listing before an appropriate Bench.
