Shri Pala Singh Tanck vs Union Of India
2013 Latest Caselaw 1517 Del

$~19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Date of decision: April 03, 2013

+                          W.P.(C) 6942/2012

        SHRI PALA SINGH TANCK                       ..... Petitioner
                      Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate with
                                      Mr.R.N.Singh and Mr.A.S.Singh,
                                      Advocates.
                           versus

        UNION OF INDIA                             ..... Respondent
                      Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. Impugned decision dated March 29, 2011 has dismissed O.A.No.1111/2011 in limine.

2. Since we are remanding the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh adjudication requiring record to be produced and considered by the Tribunal we do not reflect upon the merits of the controversy; but would be obliged to record our reasons for remanding the matter to the Tribunal.

3. Petitioner Pala Singh Tanck had an issue pertaining to his ACR grading for the period 01.08.2006 to 31.03.2007 and 01.04.2007 to 13.8.2007. He was grated 'Average' for the said periods. Undisputedly, the ACR gradings was below bench mark. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court as per decision reported as (2008) 8 SCC 725 Dev Dutt

Vs. UOI & Ors. the below benchmark ACR gradings were conveyed to him for his response. He submitted the response on which the reporting and the reviewing officer penned their remarks. Considering the same, vide order dated August 25, 2010, the representation for correcting the ACR grading was turned down.

4. Two issues were raised in the Original Application filed. The first was a hiatus between the ACR grading as finally recorded i.e. Average vis- a-vis assessments in APAR proforma pertaining to individual trades, which we find have been highlighted in para 2.1 of the order dated August 25, 2010.

5. Regretfully, while deciding the Original Application, the Tribunal has not considered said aspect of the matter.

6. The second point was premised on the ACR gradings for the preceding and the succeeding years. A tabulated chart was relied upon as under:-

Year Performance Report Officer Reviewing with designation Officer with designation 2000-01 V.Good Sh.Vijay Kumar, Dr.S.K.Nath, Director DDG 2001-02 Outstanding -do- -do-

             2002-03    V.Good         Sh.S.Ray, D.G.       -
             2003-04    V.Good         -do-                 -
             2004-05    Outstanding    Dr.S.K.Nath, ADG Sh.J.Hari
                                                         Narayan,
                                                         Secretary
             2005-06    Outstanding    -do-              Sh.P.S.Rana,
                                                         Secretary
             2006-07    Average        Sh.Sarvesh Kumar, Sh.Jogeshwar


                                        DDG           w.e.f.   Dash,      ADG
                                       1.8.2006         to    w.e.f. 1.4.2007
                                       31.3.2007              to 13.08.2007
             2007-08    Average        Sh.Sarvesh Kumar,      Sh.Jogeshwar
                                       DDG                    Dash,      ADG
                                       w.e.f.1.4.2007 to      w.e.f.1.4.2007
                                       31.8.2007              to 13.08.2007
             2008-09    Very Good      Smt.Madhu Bala,        Sh.S.Mjharwal,
                                       Adviser                Principal
                                       w.e.f.1.9.2007 to      Adviser
                                       31.3.2008              (Spl.Secretary)

7. Noting the same, view taken by the Tribunal is that the claimant before it i.e. the writ petitioner had not brought on record any material to justify the said tabular chart.

8. Indeed, the petitioner could never produce material to make good the chart, for the reason he was not to be having APAR grading which were above the bench mark. This was the reason he could not produce the APAR gradings for the year 2000-01, 2005-06 and 2008-09. He could only produce the APAR gradings for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 for the reasons he was graded below bench mark i.e. Average therein.

9. It was for the respondent to have produced the record and for which the Tribunal ought to have put the respondent to notice.

10. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated March 29, 2011. O.A.No.1111/2011 is restored for fresh adjudication before the Tribunal.

11. List the matter before the Registrar of the Tribunal on April 30, 2013. Since both parties are present they are directed to appear before the Registrar of the Tribunal on said date.

12. The Tribunal would grant an opportunity to the respondent to file a

reply. ACR gradings of the petitioner would be summoned by the Tribunal for the years 2000-01 till 2008-09. The issue would be decided with reference to the grounds of challenge raised by the writ petitioner.

13. No costs.

14. DASTI.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE APRIL 03, 2013/skb