Delhi High Court

Union Of India & Anr vs Rakesh Ranjan on 13 January, 2016

$~19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                          W.P.(C) 1358/2015
                                    Date of decision: 13th January, 2016
UNION OF INDIA & ANR                          ..... Petitioner
              Through Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC.

                           versus


RAKESH RANJAN                              ..... Respondent
            Through Mr. O.P. Kalshian, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

Union of India by this writ petition impugns the following

findings and directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench (Tribunal, for short) vide order dated 17th October,

2014 in OA No.2754/2013:-

"19. Having considered the above facts and judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that the review DPC should not have ignored the upgraded ACR of the applicant for the year 2003-04 by grading the officer as „Good‟ as against the upgradation to „Very Good‟. Such action is not permissible as has been held by the Tribunal in OA-2681/12 vide order dated 24.08.2013. For the same reason, the

ACR for the year 2003-04 has to be reviewed again and the review DPC needs to be convened to consider the applicant‟s case afresh in the light of aforenoted decision of the Tribunal. We are also of the view that in line with the directions contained in the order dated 30.08.2011 in OA- 464/2010 of the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal, the review DPC has to be held to consider the promotion of the applicant by reviewing the proceedings of the DPC held on 5.10.2009 as well as for the review DPC held on 20.12.2009 to consider the promotion of the applicant against the vacancy year 2009-10 and each year thereafter. In the event of the review DPC finding the applicant fit for promotion, the respondents shall promote the applicant from the date his immediate junior was promoted with consequential benefits, except arrears of pay. The aforenoted exercise shall be undertaken and shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy and to decide whether the

aforesaid findings and directions are correct, brief facts may be

noticed.

(i) The respondent is an officer of Indian Defence Accounts

Service.

(ii) In the review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)

meeting held on 5th October, 2009 for promotion to the grade of

Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, necessitated on account of

increase in vacancies and to streamline the panel, the respondent at Sr.

No.21 of the eligibility list, was assessed as „unfit‟ for promotion

along with some other officers.

(iii) One R.K. Anand, who was also declared „unfit‟ for promotion,

filed a petition before the Tribunal and directions were issued for

communication of below the benchmark ACRs, with liberty to make

representation and in the event of ACRs being upgraded, to hold a

review DPC.

(iv) The respondent on receipt of below the benchmark ACRs for

the years 2003-04 and 2004-05, made a representation and vide order

dated 10th December, 2010, the gradings were revised from „Good‟ to

„Very Good‟.

(v) The respondent filed an Original Application before the

Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 20 th August,

2011 with a direction to hold a review DPC.

(vi) The review DPC in its meeting held on 27th December, 2012 did

not agree with the upgradation of ACR for the period 2003-04 and

assessed the respondent as „unfit‟ for promotion to the grade of

Principal Controller of Defence Account in the Indian Defence

Accounts Service in the year 2009-10. Pertinently, the review DPC

had accepted the upgradation of the ACR for the year 2004-05 as

„Very Good‟.

(vii) This order of the review DPC dated 27th December, 2012 was

made subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in OA No.

2754/2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding

recorded in paragraph 19 quoted above that the DPC should not have

ignored the accredited ACR of the respondent for the year 2003-04

and such action was impermissible, is factually and legally incorrect.

He has drawn out attention to the minutes of the review DPC dated

27th December, 2012, in which the case of the respondent was

considered and it was also examined whether in view of the

upgradation in the ACR for the year 2003-04 from „Good‟ to „Very

Good‟, the respondent should be declared fit for promotion.

4. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner-Union of India. Minutes dated 27th December, 2012, placed

on record indicate that members of the said DPC, namely; the

Chairman, UPSC; the Financial Adviser Defence Services; and the

Controller General of Defence Accounts, after considering the ACRs

for the year 2003-04, had made the following remarks:-

"9.1 The Committee observed that in the ACRs for the year 2003-04, the Reporting Officer has only broadly agreed with the self assessment made by the officer. The entries in almost all the columns, the officer has been graded as good only whereas in the general assessment column (Column 3-Pt. IV) the Reporting Officer has stated that the officer needs to manage and exercise administrative authority independently with due case (sic) and caution which is an advisory. In column 4 (a) of Part (V) the Reviewing Officer has advised to improve the functioning of the officer. With these entries in it, the Report of 2003-04 cannot be graded as „Very Good‟ in any manner. Hence, the Committee did not agree with the upgradation of the ACR and graded it as „Good‟ only.

It would be, therefore, incorrect to state that the review DPC did not

take into account or consider the revised ACR and the upgradation for

the year 2003-04. They had consciously and suitably disagreed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the

findings and the appraisal made by the review DPC in the meeting

held on 27th December, 2012 was erroneous and incorrect. In support,

he has referred to the minutes or the findings recorded in the order

dated 10th December, 2010 upgrading the ACR for the year 2003-04.

In particular, our attention is drawn to paragraphs 4 and 7 of the said

order, which for the sake of clarity and convenience, we would like to

reproduce. The said paragraphs read:-

"4. And whereas, in his general assessment [Part IV 3], the Reporting Officer has mentioned that Shri Ranjan „is having adequate knowledge of working (of) the factory organisation‟ but „[needs to manage and exercise administrative authority independently with due care and caution.

5. x x x x

6. x x x x

7. And whereas, the Competent Authority noted that there is some merit in the officer‟s contention. An officer holding independent charge of a field office, could not possibly have achieved whatever he has mentioned in his self-appraisal, with which the Reporting Officer is in broad agreement, only under „due supervision and appropriate guidance‟, as observed by the Reporting Officer. Such supervision and guidance cannot extent to day-to-day functioning of an independent officer by the main office. The achievements mentioned in the self-appraisal could also not have been possible if the officer possessed only „good‟ initiative and planning ability, or if he possessed only „good‟ knowledge of rules, functions etc. as remarked by the Reporting Officer. In fact, judging purely by what Shri Ranjan has mentioned in his self-appraisal, with which the Reporting Officer has expressed his broad agreement, his being graded as „good‟ on account of other attributes also, as mentioned in para 3 above, is evidently case of underassessment on the part of the Reporting Officer.

The Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority also seem to have based their assessment on the remarks of the Reporting Officer, as the apparent inconsistency in the remarks of the Reporting Officer vis-a-vis the self-appraisal has not been commented upon by either of them."

6. We have deliberately quoted the aforesaid portion of the order

dated 10th December, 2010, for they would, in fact, corroborate and

support the reasoning given by the review DPC in the minutes dated

27th December, 2012. Paragraph 7 of the said order is rather

ambiguous and records observations made in the ACR forms and yet

records that the Reviewing and Accepting Authority seem to have

based their assessment on the remarks of the Reporting Officer. This

reasoning and finding is unacceptable, as recorded by the Review

DPC.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us the

ACR form for the year 2003-04 and has drawn our attention to the

recordings made therein. Specific attention has been drawn to Part-