Delhi High Court
Insp./Gd Krishna Rajak vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 August, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : August 28, 2012
+ WP(C) 5288/2012
INSP./GD KRISHNA RAJAK ...Petitioner
Represented by:Mr.S.R.Kalkal, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Saqib, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. We think that the instant matter can be solved by
converting the pleadings to a dart board; and if the bull's eye
can be seen with clarity, we are confident that the dart thrown
by us would hit the target.
2. But, before that, we record that learned counsel for
the respondent who appears on advance copy being served
waives notice and a right to file the counter affidavit because
admittedly all relevant documents have been filed along with
the writ petition.
3. Now the dart board.
4. It has to be a heptagon because, pertaining to the
ACR grading of the petitioner, the proforma prescribed has
seven traits to be assessed by the Reporting Officer and these
seven create the heptagon.
5. The seven traits are: (i) Industry and Perseverance;
(ii) Keenness of initiative; (iii) Power of expression; (iv)
Supervision and guidance; (v) Loyalty, reliability, security and
mindedness; (vi) Acceptance of responsibility, judgment and
discipline; and (vii) Any special commendatory. Pertaining to
the period 1996 till the year 2011, for the seven traits, the
petitioner was graded:
Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5 Trait 6 Trait 7
1996 V Good V Good V Good Good Loyal & V Good N.A.
Relia-
ble
1997 Good Good Good Good -do- Good N.A.
1998 V Good V Good Good Good -do- V Good N.A.
1999 Good Good Good Good -do- V Good N.A.
2000 Hardship Takes Average Good -do- V Good N.A.
initiative
2001 Inquisit- Keen V Good V Good -do- V Good N.A.
ive &
reserve
in nature
2002 V Good V Good V Good V Good -do- V Good Excell-
ent in
all
tasks
assign-
ned
and
produ-
ces
desir-
ed
results
2003 Hardwo- Takes Good Good -do- V Good N.A.
rking keen
interest
2004 Hardwo- -do- V Good V Good Very Accepta- N.A.
rking & reliable nce of
sincere and response-
loyal bility and
takes
correct
judgment
2005 Extrem- Outstan- Outstan- Able Extre- Outstan- N.A.
ely ding ding Guide mely ding
hardwor- loyal
king
2006 Industry Takes V Good V Good Loyal & Takes N.A.
& interest reliable judgm-
persever & ents,
ance initiative tactful
and
disciple-
ned
2007 Should Takes no Power of Command Aver- Takes He is
take initiative express- and age respon- not
more ion not control is quality sibility taking
interest effective Average casually. much
Discipline inter-
is est in
average. the
job.
2008 Hardwo- Takes V Good V Good Loyal to V Good V
rking initiative his Good
in his service
work
2009 Extrem- Outstan- Outstan- An able Extre- Outstan- N.A.
ely ding ding officer. mely ding
hardwor- Guides loyal
king his and
subordi- reliable
nates for
result
2010 V Good V Good V Good V Good V Good V Good V
Good
2011 V Good V Good V Good V Good V Good V Good V
Good
6. The dart board speaks it all. For all the years in
question, except the year 2007, the petitioner has been graded
on the seven facets, mostly 'Very Good'; on some occasion
'Good' and on some occasion 'Outstanding'. The remarks for
the year 2007 are a complete mismatch. The result is that for
the years 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2008 the overall ACR grading of
the petitioner is 'Good' and that for the years 1996, 1997, 1998,
2001, 2003, 2004, 2010 and 2011 the ACR grading is 'Very
Good' and for the years 2002, 2005 and 2009 is 'Outstanding',
for the year 2007 it is 'Average'.
7. Now, it is not possible that for 11 years a person is
either 'Very Good' or 'Outstanding' and then for one year he
drops to 'Average' and then regains 'Very Good' and
'Outstanding' in the next three years.
8. Let us illustrate one trait. The trait No.(iii) i.e. 'Power
of Expression'. This is not a trait which is acquired and lost
overnight. The dart board would reveal that for this trait the
petitioner has been rated all throughout as 'Good', 'Very Good'
or 'Outstanding', but for the year 2007 the officer has written
that petitioner's power of expression is not effective.
9. There is obviously a problem, and the problem
appears to be as disclosed by the petitioner; that the
Commandant under whom he was working i.e. M.P.Singh was
accepting lower quality of ration for troops and the petitioner
being a member of the Tendering Opening/Condemnation Board
had wanted samples to be obtained and in retaliation, the
Commandant Shri M.P.Singh, made entries reflecting petitioner
in a poor light.
10. We are pained to note that in the impugned
memorandum dated February 09, 2012, the Competent
Authority has rejected the representation of the petitioner
against the adverse grading awarded to the petitioner and the
overall grading 'Average' for the year 2007, oblivious of the fact
that a wrong against the petitioner stands stark in the ACR
grading for the year 2007.
11. The dart, shot at the dart board, is bound to see the
bull's eye i.e. the offending comments noted in the ACR grading
of the petitioner because of their inherent strength and
character to attract the dart to the board where the ACR
gradings stand noted.
12. We allow the writ petition and strike down the ACR
grading awarded to the petitioner for the year 2007, and since
the Competent Authority has totally misapplied its mind, being
of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served for the
Competent Authority to be directed to reconsider the ACR
grading for the year 2007, we declare that said year's ACR
grading be excluded while considering the entitlement of the
petitioner for promotion. Highlighting that at the DPC which met
somewhere in the year 2008, the petitioner was superseded on
account of the below benchmark ACR grading for the year 2007,
we direct that a Review DPC be held and while considering the
ACR gradings of the petitioner, to exclude the ACR grading for
the year 2007 and instead take into account the ACR grading of
one year back. Needful be done within 12 weeks from today.
Needless to state, if the petitioner is found fit for promotion, he
be promoted with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay
fixation etc. except back-wages being not paid, on the principle
of petitioner not having shouldered the responsibility for the
higher post; but all other benefits of notional promotion from a
back-date which would include revised pay fixation would be
given effect to.
13. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
AUGUST 28, 2012
dk
