Delhi High Court
Tushar Ranjan Mohanty vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 September, 2015
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9319/2015
% Date of Judgment : 29.09.2015
TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. R. V. Sinha and Mr. R. N. Singh,
Advocates for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C. M. APPL. Nos. 21576/2015 & 21579/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W. P. (C) 9319/2015 & C. M. APPL. Nos. 21577-78/2015
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 20.08.2015. The petitioner had
challenged the below benchmark grading and adverse remarks in the
Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period
01.04.2012 to 31.07.2012. While disposing of the O.A., the following
directions were passed by the Tribunal :
"15. In view of such findings, we are of the opinion that
the order dated 14.10.2014 must go with the following
directions :
(i) The order dated 14.10.2014 is hereby quashed
being against the rules of natural justice.
(ii) The Competent Authority is directed to consider the
representation of the applicant on the basis of the
material placed on record and otherwise available
in the office as he deems fit.
(iii) The Competent Authority could also consider to
grant personal hearing to the applicant in case so
desired by him.
(iv) The Competent Authority may pass a reasoned
order in respect of representation of the applicant
dated 30.01.2014 within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified copy of this
order."
4. The petitioner who appears in person submits that the Tribunal has
quashed the order dated 14.10.2014 and directed the Competent
Authority to consider the representation on the basis of material
placed on record and otherwise available in the office. A direction
has also been issued for grant of personal hearing to the petitioner and
thereafter a reasoned order is to be passed with respect to the
representation within three months. He further submits that large
number of cases are pending between the petitioner and the
respondent department in this court and as also before the Central
Administrative Tribunal which has led to unpleasantness between the
parties. The petitioner submits that having regard to the previous
events, past litigation he fears that a fair hearing may not be granted.
Petitioner also submits that as per the order of the CAT the
representation of the petitioner is to be considered by the Minister but
since he has never worked with or under the Minister, the Minister
would have no knowledge about the working of the petitioner. He
further submits that he expects no justice from respondent no. 2 as he
had challenged his appointment which fact has been taken into
account by the Tribunal as well.
5. Heard.
6. We are informed that a former General Chief of the Armed Forces is
the concerned Minister in the present case. In our view, the
concerned Minister during his career would have had many
opportunities to record the ACRs and also would have faced such
situations as detailed in the order of the Tribunal.
7. We have full faith that the Hon'ble Minister would act in a fair and
just manner. We also have no hesitation in saying that the Hon'ble
Minister would apprise himself based on record and not any hearsay
information from any quarters. The Hon'ble Minister would consider
the material in his right perspective, grant a personal hearing to the
petitioner and thereafter decide the matter expeditiously and in
accordance with law as the petitioner is due for promotion in the
month of February, 2016. We request the Minister to decide the
matter within the period of one month from receipt of the order.
8. With these directions, the writ petition and all pending applications
are disposed of.
9. Order dasti.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015/sc
