Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Azad Singh vs M/O Environment And Forests on 3 May, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 1745/2018
New Delhi, this the 3rd day of May, 2018
Hon'ble Mrs. Jasmine Ahmed, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A)
Shri Azad Singh, age 37 years, Research Associate-I
S/o Shri Randhir Singh
R/o House No.948/24,
Street No.05, Bhat Nagar Colony,
Rohtak Road, Jind,
Haryana ....Applicant
(Through Shri S.M. Aijaz, Shri Javed Ahmed and Shri Anis Ahmed,
Advocates)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Aliganj,
Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi
2. Central Pollution Control Board,
Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change,
(Govt. of India)
Through its Member Secretary
Parivesh Bhavan, East Arjun Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 .... Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs. Jasmine Ahmed, Member (J) The applicant was appointed as Research Associate - I under NGRBA Project by the Central Pollution Control Board (respondent 2 OA 1745/2018 no.2) vide offer letter of appointment dated 28.03.2014 against advertisement no.1/2012 issued on 21.09.2012, after clearing the interview. He joined service on 22.04.2014. It is contended that the fellowship period was extended from time to time. On 31.08.2017, the respondent no.2 issued a circular subjecting performance appraisal report in respect of Research Associates-I and Senior Research Fellows and Project Staff. Accordingly, the applicant furnished the same. He also submitted one page write up about the work done upto 31.05.2017 as per instructions in accordance with the circular dated 1.06.2017. The circular issued by respondent no.2 on 31.10.2017 was with regard to 10 minutes presentation on 18.11.2017 for assessing the suitability of officials working under NGRBA project for further extension/ retention in the respondent department. On 23.11.2017, the respondent no.2 issued a memorandum subjecting the absence of the applicant during the presentation held on 18.11.2017. The applicant was served with a memorandum seeking his explanation for being absent and not attending the presentation programme on 18.11.2017. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the applicant's computer system was shifted and handed over to other Scientists, the applicant could not save the data/ personal copy of the record pertaining to work done by him and, therefore, he remained absent. On 24.11.2017, the respondent no.2 again issued a circular informing the applicant to appear for the presentation scheduled to be held on 1.12.2017 at 4.00 pm. It is 3 OA 1745/2018 contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that on the same day i.e. 1.12.2017, the applicant fell sick and could not appear for the presentation, which was orally informed to his superior officer. On 8.12.2017, the respondent no.2 issued an office order that the applicant was observed as "none performing" and he also did not appear for self assessment presentation and considering his "none performance" and misconduct, he was granted further extension only upto 8.12.2017 and was relieved from the services of C.P.C.B. and his name was struck off from the project with effect from 8.12.2017.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that when on 11.12.2017, the applicant went to attend his duties, respondent no.2 did not allow him to join duties and served him an office order dated 8.12.2017 relieving him as Research Associate - I. On 15.12.2017, the applicant submitted a representation to C.P.C.B. requesting to consider his case on medical ground.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
4. It is seen that for the first time the applicant was to be present for self assessment presentation on 18.11.2017. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to page no.35 of the paper book to show that the computer system of the applicant was shifted to one Shri C.B. Chourasia, Scientist `E' vide note dated 4 OA 1745/2018 23.08.2017. On query whether he ever informed the authorities about his inconvenience with regard to shifting of computer, learned counsel for the applicant could not give any reply and was also unable to substantiate his argument as the date of being present for self assessment was 18.11.2017, which is around four months from the date of shifting of his computer system. The respondents gave him a second chance for self-assessment presentation on 1.12.2017 but the applicant did not appear before the Committee on that day also. The applicant's counsel contended that on that very day, the applicant fell sick and informed his superior authority orally but on query, he could not give any satisfactory reply as to whom he informed about his sickness. It is also seen that the prescription attached at page no.39 of the paper book is from a private clinic and also dated 9.12.2017, which does not show that he was undergoing continuous treatment from 1.12.2017. After that the applicant has given a representation dated 15.12.2017 for extension of time on medical grounds for delivering the presentation on work assessment.
5. The entire pleading does not show/ reflect any sincere efforts of the applicant for appearing in self-assessment presentation. It is also not acceptable that as his computer system was shifted, he could not appear for the self-assessment as the same was shifted four months from the date of his presentation. The applicant could very well apprise his inconvenience to the authorities if he was 5 OA 1745/2018 facing any problem. In fact he did not appear even on the second occasion and nowhere has he attached any prescription in regard to his claim of sickness on 1.12.2017, when he was scheduled to present himself for presentation. Accordingly, we feel that the applicant could not make out any case in his favour for grant of relief. However, as the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently requests that since the applicant has preferred a representation dated 15.12.2017, at least the respondents could decide the same in the interest of justice.
6. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits or the plea taken, we feel that in the interest of justice respondents may be directed to pass a speaking order on the aforesaid representation of the applicant. Accordingly, we dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking and reasoned order on the representation of the applicant dated 15.12.2017 and if they find the applicant suitable for extension, they may extend his term. It is, however, made clear that refusal of extension of his term, will not give any fresh cause of action to the applicant to approach this Tribunal again.
(Uday Kumar Varma) (Jasmine Ahmed) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/