Ranju Prasad vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3056 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Judgment delivered on 08.05.2012

+      W.P.(C) 2715/2012



RANJU PRASAD                                                      ...        Petitioner

                                         Versus

UOI & ORS.                                                        ...        Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Mr O.P.Kalshian
For the Respondent   : None.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                            JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the DPC recommendation dated

16.09.2009 had declared her as unfit for the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in

respect of the panel year 2008-2009. The petitioner belongs to the Indian Postal

Services of 1988 batch. It may be pointed out that in the year 2000-2001, the

petitioner was awarded a minor penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in her

scale of pay for three years without cumulative effect. We may also point out that

the petitioner was on study leave for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The Tribunal, after considering all the circumstances, dismissed the

petitioner‟s Original Application being O.A. No. 2724/2010 by virtue of the

impugned order dated 22.09.2011.

3. The main plea which is being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that in respect of the year 2000-2001, the petitioner had been given the grading

of "Very Good" by the reporting officer but, that grading was reduced to "Good"

by the DPC while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. According

to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this could not have been done by the DPC.

Therefore, the ACR grading of "Very Good" for the year 2000-2001 ought to have

been taken and if that were to be the case then the petitioner could not have been

declared unfit inasmuch as she had received the grading "Very Good" in respect of

the other years under consideration, namely, 2001-2002, 2005-2006, 2006-2007

and 2007-2008. We may point out, at this stage, that the years 2003-2004,

and 2004-2005 were not within the purview for the purposes of considering the

assessment of the petitioner inasmuch as she was on study leave and, in view of the

DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989, these two years had to be excluded and the

immediately preceding two years had to be taken into consideration. It is for this

reason that years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 were taken into consideration along

with the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 by the DPC.

4. Now, the only question that requires consideration is as to whether the DPC

could have downgraded the petitioner from "Very Good" to "Good" in respect of

the year 2000-2001 for the purposes of considering her for promotion in the panel

year 2008-2009.

5. In this regard, we find that there is a UPSC order dated 05.06.2008 which

describes the methodology to be adopted for treatment of penalties in the DPC

meeting held under the aegis of the UPSC. Paragraph 2 of the said order dated

05.06.2008 is relevant for our purposes and the same reads as under:-

"(2) Penalties of (a) „withholding of promotion‟

(b) „recovery from pay‟ (c) „reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect‟ (d) withholding of increments from pay‟ (all minor penalties), (e) „reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period;

(f) „reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service‟ (major penalties).

(i) If the penalty is awarded in the last assessment

year or thereafter, the officer is made „Unfit" only once. That penalty is not considered thereafter.

(ii) However, if the penalty is awarded before the last assessment year but within the assessment matrix, the grading for that year is lowered by one level. For example, if the grading is „Outstanding‟, it is reduced to „Very Good‟.

Similarly, the „Very Good‟ is reduced to „Good‟ and „Good‟ to „Average. This is also given effect only once." (underlining added)

6. It is apparent from a plain reading of the above quoted portion of the said

order dated 05.06.2008 that it would be clause (ii) thereof which would be

applicable in the present case. Since penalty was awarded in the year 2000-2001

and that year fell within the assessment matrix, the grading in respect thereof had to

be lowered by the DPC by one level. Since the petitioner had been given the

grading of "Very Good" by the reporting officer, the DPC was bound to reduce it

from "Very Good" to "Good. There is no doubt that this was to be given effect

only once. It would obviously not operate for the succeeding years, however,

insofar as the panel year 2008-2009 is concerned, the DPC was duty bound, by

virtue of the said order dated 05.06.2008, to reduce the grading from "Very Good"

to "Good". Once that was done, the petitioner did not have five "Very Goods" in

the ACRs in the five years which were under consideration. As such, the DPC

declared her to be unfit. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in either the

DPC decision declaring the petitioner to be „unfit‟ for SAG in the panel year

2008-2009 or in the Tribunal‟s order rejecting the petitioner‟s said Original

Application. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J MAY 08,2012 'sn'