Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
K. Gopinath S/O Late K. Ramachandra Rao vs The Central Electricity Authority, ... on 12 April, 2007
ORDER
G. Sivarajan, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The applicant who was working as Assistant Engineer in Central Electricity Authority, Bangalore has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
(a) QUASH order bearing No. 423/2003-Vig. dated 24th February, 2006 (under Annexure-A15 to the application) issued by the 1st respondent by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari in so far it refuses the prayer of the applicant for expunging of the entire adverse remarks and order expunging of adverse remarks communicated to the applicant by Memorandum No. 4.23-2003-Vig. dated 28th September 2005 (under Annexure-13 to the application) both issued by the 1st respondent.
(b) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The respondents have issued a memorandum dated 12-11-2003 (Annexure A11) communicating adverse remarks recorded in the CR of the applicant for the period from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003. The adverse remarks noted is as follows:
The Reporting Officer (RO) has commented upon that "Shri Gopinath never takes interest in the practical training, he argues too much and spoiling other officers. He was told to undergo training in 400 KV to become faculty member but he refused and is not fit to the Hotline works.
The Reviewing Authority (RA) has also endorsed the views of the RO and recorded that Shri Gopinath deserves improvement in his attitudes.
3. The applicant has filed representation against the said adverse remarks on 5-12-2003. No orders were passed in the said matter till 28-9-2005 on which date another communication dated 28-9-2005 communicating one more adverse remarks in the ACR of the applicant for the period from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003 was issued. The said adverse remarks reads:
Shri Gopinath does not want to work in the field but main job of HLTC is to work in the field only.
The applicant filed his representation against the said adverse remarks on 26-10-2005 (Annexure A14). The respondents issued a memorandum dated 24-2-2006 (Annexure A15) which reads thus:
With reference to Shri K. Gopinath, Assistant Director-II's communications No. Nil dated 5.12.2003 and 26.10.2005 requesting for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2002-03, it is informed that the Competent Authority in the Ministry of Power has agreed to expunction of only the following remarks in the ACR:
Part-III (Sl. No. 3) He was told to undergo training in 400kv to become faculty member but he refused.
It is the grievance of the applicant that though he had explained the entire circumstances to show that the said adverse remarks cannot be sustained, the respondents have only expunged a portion of the adverse remarks intimated to him in Annexure A11 to the effect that "he was told to undergo training in 400kv to become faculty member but he refused and". The applicant has got a case that the ACR was not written and the adverse remarks not communicated in the manner and within the time specified in the guidelines for writing the ACR.
4. We have heard Shri Ganapathy, learned Counsel for the applicant. Inspite of the submission of the counsel that his senior Shri P.S. Rajagopal is out of station and therefore it must be adjourned, we heard Shri Ganapathy and Shri K.N. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. They made submissions on the lines of the their respective pleadings.
5. We have already extracted the adverse remarks entered in the ACR of the applicant for the period from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003 intimated to the applicant as per Annexure A11 and A13 and the replies filed by the applicant (para-5 of Annexure 14). We also considered the impugned order which we have already extracted. As already mentioned, though the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR relates to various matters, only a portion of the said adverse remarks, namely, 'he was told to undergo training in 400 kv to become faculty member is refused' is expunged. Why the remaining portion of the said adverse remarks could not be expunged, has not been stated in the order. We find from the representations made against the adverse remarks that the applicant has stated so many matters including the circumstances warranting expunction of adverse remarks. We have perused the reply filed by the respondents. It only states that the first respondent had considered the adverse remarks, the objections and other facts and arrived at the conclusion contained in the memorandum dated 24-2-2006. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has also placed before us the relevant files. Prima facie we do not find any satisfactory reason stated for not expunging the other adverse remarks also. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned memorandum dated 24-2-2006 and direct the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the two representations filed by the applicant and in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This OA is disposed of as above. In the circumstances there will be no orders as to costs.
We record the presence of Shri S.L. Meena, Deputy Secretary (B&V), Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi and M.G. Jagannatha, Assistant SRPC, CEA, Bangalore with the files to assist the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.