Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri H.S. Acharya vs Union Of India Through on 11 August, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 1684/2009 New Delhi, this the 11th day of August, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L. K. Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) Shri H.S. Acharya, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik, Residing at Vrindavan Apartments, Opp. Mahalaxmi Hostel, Sharanpur Road, Nashik. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Kunal Verma) Versus 1. Union of India through: The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 3. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Aurangajeb Road, New Delhi 110 001. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh & Sh. R.V. Sinha) ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
H.S. Acharya, applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking direction to be issued to be respondents to re-consider his case for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. He has also called in question the recommendations made by Departmental Promotion Committee held on 18.11.2008 holding him unfit for promotion to the post, as mentioned above.
2. In view of the controversy involved in this case, there is no need to give facts in detail. However, suffice it to mention that the applicant belongs to 1976 batch of IRS. He was promoted on the basis of seniority and merit upto the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax. On 18.11.2008, DPC for considering officers of 1975 and 1976 batches for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was convened in which the applicant was adjudged unfit for promotion on the ground that he had been graded as Good for the year 2004-05, whereas the benchmark was Very Good in respect of all five years from 2002-03 to 2006-07. It is the case of the applicant that once he has been graded as Good, which would be below benchmark from promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, being adverse the applicant ought to have been communicated the same, but that has not been done and he has been deprived of his right to make a representation against the same. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon the decision of Full Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Ashok Kumar Aneja V/s. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 24/2007 decided on 07.05.2008) and the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt V/s Union of India & Ors. (SLP No. 7631/2002 decided on 12.05.2008) wherein the said view has been taken.
3. In view of the two judgments, referred to above, present matter appears to be covered in favour of the applicant. Normally, in the circumstances as mentioned above, following the two decisions, referred to above, we would have directed the respondents to communicate to the applicant his report for the year 2004-05 enabling him to make a representation against the same. However, we find that both the reporting and reviewing officers, who initiated and finalized the report of the applicant pertaining to year 2004-05, have since retired. In similar circumstances, very recently i.e. on 05.08.2009, we have taken a view, while deciding OA No. 592/2009 (Sanjay Kumar v/s. Union of India & Ors.), that DPC shall have to consider the report of an employee immediately preceding the first report which was under consideration. That being so, we order that the review DPC shall be convened which would consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax by taking into consideration his ACR for the year 2001-02. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from today.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/