Surat Singh vs Uoi & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3343 Del

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision: 14th July, 2011

+                    WP(C) No.3369/1998

        SURAT SINGH                                ..... Petitioner
                          Through:    Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate.

                     versus

        UOI & ANR.                                ..... Respondents
                          Through:    Mr.Manav Gupta, Advocate for
                                      Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Appointed as a Sub Inspector under CRPF on 10.9.1969 petitioner earned promotions to the post of Inspector, Asstt.Commandant and then Deputy Commandant. Being eligible for further promotion on account of the fact that he had rendered the qualifying service, petitioner was considered for promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant at the DPC which met on 7.4.1997. Previous 5 years‟ ACRs which were recorded were considered by the DPC, being the ACRs for the period

1991-92 till the year 1995-96. The petitioner failed to meet the benchmark. He learnt that pertaining to the ACR years 1991-92 and 1992-93, whereas the Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer had graded him „Very Good‟, the Countersigning Authority downgraded the same to „Average‟.

2. The petitioner earned a promotion the next year when the DPC convened on 11.2.1998 found petitioner having achieved the benchmark „Very Good‟ inasmuch as said DPC excluded the ACR grading for the year 1991-92 and considered the ACR gradings for the years 1992-93 till 1996-97. It is apparent that in the year 1996-97 the petitioner earned the ACR grading „Very Good‟.

3. Notwithstanding all and sundry grounds being urged in the writ petition and the ground that as per the latest decision pronounced by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2008 (8) SCC 725 Devdutt vs. UOI as per which below benchmark ACR gradings have to be treated as adverse and communicated to the person concerned to enable him to file a representation there-against, which representation has to be considered and decided by the Competent Authority, the writ petition can succeed on a short ground.

4. In the counter affidavit filed (refer para 4 of the preliminary submissions) the respondents have admitted that DOP&T guidelines apply to the respondents. Vide OM No.5/3/74-Estt.(A) dated 2.5.1975, guidelines have been laid down pertaining to the duties and procedures to be followed by the Endorsing Officers/Accepting Authority/Counter Signing Authority. Vide

para 2 thereof it is stipulated as under:-

"(ii) With a view to enabling the reviewing authority to discharge his responsibility in ensuring the objectivity of the Confidential Reports it has been decided that where he is not sufficiently familiar with the work of the officer reported upon so as to be able to arrive at a proper and independent judgment of his own, it should be his responsibility to verify the correctness of the remarks of the reporting officer after making such enquiries as he may consider necessary, he should also give a hearing to the person reported upon before recording his remarks."

5. Admittedly, aforesaid procedure has not been followed.

6. We have perused the ACRs for the said 2 periods and would highlight that indeed the Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer, for the first year in dispute i.e. the year 1991- 92 recommended ACR grading „Very Good‟, which without any reasons recorded and without an opportunity of granting a hearing to the petitioner have been toned down to „Average‟ by the Accepting/Counter Signing Authority and for the next year i.e. the year 1992-93, where ACR is in 2 parts we find that the ACR grading „Good‟ recommended by the Reporting Officer and accepted by the Reviewing Officer have been, without any reasons recorded and without an opportunity of hearing being granted, scaled down to „Average‟.

7. Since the procedures have not been followed by the Accepting/Counter Signing Authority, we dispose of the petition directing the department to expunge the ACR gradings recorded by the Accepting/Counter Signing Authority for the said 2 years and instead replace the same with the ACR gradings

consistently recommended and accepted by the Reporting Authority and the Reviewing Authority.

8. We direct that a Review DPC be held as of 7.4.1997 and at the said DPC the data profile of the petitioner be placed, after re-drawing the same, as per our decision. The DPC would consider, by way of review, candidature of the petitioner and needless to state if he is recommended for promotion, the petitioner‟s promotion, which he has subsequently earned would be ante-dated with effect from the date persons junior to him were promoted. Petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits except pay, which we deny on the principle of law that not having worked and discharged the responsibilities of the higher post, petitioner would be not entitled to salary thereof.

9. No costs.

10. DASTI.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

JULY 14, 2011 dk