Delhi High Court
Arun Kumar Sharma vs Ministry Of Road Transport And ... on 27 July, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.07.2012
+ W.P.(C) 4443/2012 & C.M. 9202-9203/2012
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA ... Petitioner
versus
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Ashish Mohan.
For the Respondent : Mr B.V.Niren and Mr Prasouk Jain.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2011 in
O.A. No.4248/2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi. The only question in this appeal relates to the
recording of the ACR for the year 2005-06. The learned counsel for the
petitioner pointed out that the Reporting Officer had given „very good‟ and
the same was maintained by the Reviewing Authority whereas the
accepting authority reduced it to „average‟. When the petitioner was
informed about this he moved a representation and that representation has
also been considered, however the grading of „average‟ has been
maintained.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the order
dated 04.11.2010 which has been passed on the representation filed by the
petitioner with regard to the ACR for 2005-06. He pointed out that in
Paragraph 4 of the order it has been mentioned that comments were
received from the Reviewing Officer (Shri Indu Prakash) whereby it was
indicated that the remarks given in the petitioner‟s ACR may not be treated
as adverse remarks. However, we find that in the first instance the
Reviewing Officer had not given any adverse remarks and that he had
maintained the grading of „very good‟ of the Reporting Officer. It is only
the Accepting Authority who has given the remark of „average‟. Paragraphs
6,7,8 and 9 of the order dated 04.11.2010, which are relevant, read as
under:-
"6. Whereas, the remarks of Accepting Authority Shri
L.K. Joshi, former Secretary, M/o Personnel Public
Grievances & Pension are asunder:-
"I have seen the work of Shri A.K. Sharma very
closely. The assessment of both the Reporting as
well as Reviewing Officers is highly exaggerated.
His qualify of output, dedication to work,
leadership qualities and initiative can be called just
average, if judged liberally. He had to be
admonished on several times for holding up the
work by just sitting on the files. "AVERAGE".
7. Whereas, now the Accepting Authority the then
Hon‟ble Minister (SRT&H) Shri T.R. Ballu had counter
signed on the remarks of Accepting Authority i.e. Shri
L.K. Joshi, former Secretary.
8. Whereas, now the Competent Authority in the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has considered
the entries in the ACR of Shri A.K. Sharma for the period
2005-06 and the fresh representation made by Shri A.K.
Sharma, CE regarding below bench mark grading in his
ACR for the period 2005-06.
9. Now, therefore, after having carefully considered
the entries in the said ACR, the representation of Shri
A.K. Sharma, CE thereon and the subsequent comments
of the Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Officer, the
Competent Authority in the Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways has decided now that the grading of
„Average‟ given in the ACR of Shri A.K. Sharma for the
period 2005-06 stands."
3. The position that emerges is that the representation of the petitioner
has been considered and after consideration it has been decided that the
grading of „average‟ given in the ACR for the period 2005-06 should stand.
There is no occasion for us to take a different view in the matter inasmuch
as we cannot substitute our views for that of the competent authority.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he should have
been given an opportunity for personal hearing at the time of the
representation. But, we do not see any reason as to why he should have
been given such opportunity. Once his representation was there and the fact
is that the competent authority did consider all aspects mentioned in the
representation, there is no need to accede to what the learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted.
5. The scope of judicial review is very limited in respect of
consideration of gradings given in ACR‟s. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with impugned order as mentioned above. The Tribunal‟s decision
is correct and we confirm the same.
6. The writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JULY 27, 2012
mk
