Union Of India vs Ravinder Singh
2010 Latest Caselaw 759 Del

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                  W.P. (C.) No.845/2010

%                           Date of Decision: 09.02.2010

Union of India                                                      .... Petitioners
                           Through Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate.

                                        Versus

Ravinder Singh                                                     .... Respondent
            Through                     Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                        YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                          NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in                      NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner/Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of

Water Resources and Ors. have challenged the order dated 13th

October, 2009 passed in OA No. 588/2009 titled Sh. Ravinder Singh Vs.

Union of India & Ors. directing the petitioners to communicate to the

respondent his ACRs which may be below bench mark and considered

by the DCPs held in July, 2007 and April, 2008 and permitted the

respondent to make a representation against such reports. The Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench further directed the

petitioners that in case his ACRs are upgraded commensurating with

the bench mark, then to held a review DPC and to consider the

respondent for the post of Member, Central Water Commission.

The respondent after his appointment in Central Water

Engineering (Group-A) was promoted as Deputy Director/Executive

Engineer and later on was promoted as Director/Superintending

Engineer and was also promoted to the grade of Chief Engineer.

The respondent had filed an OA under Section 19 of

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 challenging downgrading of his

ACRs for six years from 2001 to 2007 as null and void and that he be

treated as „very good‟ in consonance with the bench mark and to

promote the respondent along with his juniors from the date his

immediate juniors were promoted.

The Tribunal, after considering the pleas and contentions of the

parties and relying on (2008) 8 SCC 725 Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India

had held that since the ACRs of the respondent for the period 2000-

2001 to 2006-2007 were below the bench mark of „very good‟ for

promotion, the entries in his ACR became adverse entries as such

entries eliminated promotion of the respondent and the respondent

became entitled for intimation of the same.

While relying on Dev Dutt (Supra), it was held that an entry in the

ACR, which adversely affects the promotion of an employee should be

communicated to him, so as to afford him opportunity of making

representation against it. Relying on the office memorandum dated 10-

11th September, 1987 in the said decision, it was held that it

contemplates communication of adverse entries only and not "good"

entry.

In Dev Dutt (Supra) the Apex Court had held communication of

entries is giving the opportunity to represent against them is

particularly important on higher post which are in a pyramidial

structure where often principal of elimination is followed in selection of

promotion, and even a single entry can destroy career of an officer

which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. This often results in

grave injustice and heart burning and may shatter the morale of many

good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, while officers

of inferior merit may be promoted. In the said case, Supreme Court

evolved a new principal of natural justice holding that fairness and

transparency in public administration require that all entries (whether

poor, fair, average, good, or very good) in the ACR of a public servant,

whether in Civil, Judicial, Police or any other said service (except

military) which can be construed as adverse must be communicated to

him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation

for its up-gradation. This rule prevails even if there may be no rule/GO

requiring communication of entry, or even if there is a rule/GO

prohibiting it because principals of non arbitrary needs it in all state

action as envisaged by article 14 of the Constitution which requires

such communication and Article 14 overwrites all Rules and such other

orders.

The Tribunal has relied on the ratio of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of

India and has directed the respondent to communicate to the

respondent such ACRs which may be below bench mark and considered

by DPCs held in July, 2007 and April, 2008. If the ACRs of the

respondent are below the bench mark, the respondent is entitled for the

communication of the said ACRs and the decision of the Tribunal

cannot be faulted on any of the grounds raised by the petitioners.

In fact, no cogent ground has been raised by the petitioner

against the order of the Tribunal based on the decision of the Apex

Court and in the circumstances, there is no scope to interfere with the

order of the Tribunal in the present facts and circumstances.

The writ petition is without any merit and it is therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

February 9, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'