Union of India and Ors. vs G.R. Meghwal

HELD : 1.1 In the instant case, the below benchmark ACR reporting the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 was communicated to the respondent vide communication dated 08.06.2010 in respect of which representation was made by the respondent on 19.06.2010. The same was rejected as per the communication dated 01.10.2010. According to the respondent, the reviewing officer was due for retirement on 31.03.2008 and the respondent submitted self-appraisal report on 15.04.2008 for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and reporting officer graded as “Good” on 17.04.2008. Further, reviewing officer signed and accepted the same without any date in spite of fact that he had retired on 31.03.2008 as per Annexure A-6 to the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal. According to the respondent, his representation was not being objectively considered. In the circumstances, Departmental Screening Committee subsequently assessed him unfit for grant of promotion i.e., grant of NFU in SAG of ITS Group-A. [Para 7][495D-F]

1.2 The tribunal on perusal of Annexure A-4/being ACRs for three years i.e., 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 has noted that for the year 2007-08 highly damaging remarks have been recorded by the same reporting authority and endorsed by the same reviewing authority. The remarks are totally opposite to those entered by the same authority previous years. The comparison of the remarks made in the ACRs for the year 200708 and for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 have been made and extracted in the order of the Tribunal. [Para 8][495-G-H]

1.3 The Tribunal noted that adverse remarks were not communicated to the respondent herein within the time limits prescribed for such communication under the prevailing rules governing the ACRs. Further attention of the officer was not drawn during the year itself, to supposed falling standards along with necessary caution/advice so as to give him a chance to improve. The tribunal further noted that it is not the case of below benchmark grading but a case of recording adverse remarks in the extreme. That the representations made by the respondent were not considered objectively, dispassionately, and fairly as there were contradiction in the qualities or attributes communicated in the said ACRs which were wholly contradictory to each other. In the circumstances, the tribunal held that “adverse remarks made for the year 2007-08 were sweeping, extreme, and inconsistent with the previous remarks. Hence it was held that the rejection of the representation was unjustified and the same was set aside. It was further observed by the tribunal that the assessment of 2007-08 were clearly arbitrary and inconsistent and ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of proper assessment of the respondent by the Screening Committee for his suitability to be promoted to a higher grade. Hence, a direction was issued to the Screening Committee to consider and reassess the suitability of the respondent herein for the purpose of grant of SAG by excluding the ACR of 2007-08 and if the respondent was found suitable for grant of consequential benefits. Against the order of the tribunal the Union of India, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court, which reiterated what had been observed by the tribunal in its order and dismissed the writ petition. [Para 8.1][498-A-E]

1.4 On perusal of what has been extracted by the Tribunal from the ACRs of 2005-06, it is noted that the respondent has been graded as “Very Good” since he has very good knowledge in technical field as well as of administrative matters; willing to assume responsibility; has good organizing capability; motivating ability and timely and proper guidance giving capability. The respondent has the capacity/resourcefulness to anticipate problems in advance as well as unforeseen situations. He has very good quality decision-making ability and is able to weigh pros and cons of alternatives and good capability of communication and present arguments in oral and written manner and good skill and capacity of evaluating and recording performance of subordinates in an impartial and objective manner. Similarly in the remarks for the year 2006-07, it has been written that the respondent has very good technical knowledge as well as administrative knowledge. He has very good organizing capacity and was able to motivate and provide timely and proper guidance to subordinates. He has good skill and capacity in evaluating and recording performance of subordinates in an impartial and objective manner. As against the said favourable remarks for the previous two years, in the year 2007-08 it has been stated that though the technical knowledge of the respondent is good, his financial and administrative knowledge is poor; that he has hardly understood the environment in anticipating change; that he was never willing to assume responsibility, and had poor organising capacity and cannot anticipate problems and unforeseen situations and does not take additional responsibility and has poor decisionmaking quality and average ability in communication and presenting case problems. [Para 9][498-F-H; 499-A-D]

1.5 In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that though the respondent was graded as “Very Good” in the ACRs for the years 2005-2006 and 20062007 and was graded only “Good” in the ACR for the year 20072008 by the very same reporting and reviewing officer, despite the fact that specifically the respondent was given the opportunity against the ACR for the year 2007-2008. However, no valid reasons are given for rejecting the representation, the Court is of the opinion that in view of the said facts and circumstances, the tribunal and the High Court have not committed any error in directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess the suitability of the respondent for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR for the year 2007-2008. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. [Para 10][499-D-F]

Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2008) 8 SCC

725 : [2008] 8 SCR 174; Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 146 : 2015 (9) SCALE 39; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 573; Sukhdeo Vs. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 103 : [1996]

2 Suppl. SCR 287; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Sarnam Singh and Anr., (2000) 2 SCC

339 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 344; Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 434 : 1989 (4) JT 487 – referred to.