Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
V.R. Reghuvarma vs Union Of India on 3 January, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 644 of 2012
Thursday, this the 3rd day of January, 2013
CORAM:
Hon'ble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
V.R. Reghuvarma, aged 55 years, S/o. V.P. Raghavan,
Superintendent of Police, State Crime Records Bureau,
Thiruvananthapuram, Residing at Vayaili veedu,
Prakkulam, Kanjavely PO, Kollam. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. P.V. Mohanan)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, represented by Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 110 012.
2. The Selection Committee for Selection to Indian
Police Service, represented by Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shajahan Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary
Government Secretariat, Trivandrum - 695 001. ..... Respondents
[By Advocates - Mr. Pradeep Krishna, ACGSC (R1)
Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Nodal counsel (R2)
& Mr. M. Rajeev, GP (R3)]
This application having been heard on 19.12.2012, the Tribunal on
03.01.2013 delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member-
The applicant retired on 24.11.2012 from the State Police Service as Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS). He was superseded in the selection proceedings commencing from the year 2003 onwards till 2009. His name is placed at serial No. 1 in the select list of 24 eligible officers dated 25.11.2011 forwarded for consideration for selection for the year 2010 but as per Annexure A7(A) newspaper report his integrity certificate has not been forwarded to the U.P.S.C. Aggrieved he has filed this OA for the following reliefs:-
"A. To direct third respondent to forward the Integrity Certificate of the applicant, full service records of the applicant containing Good Service Entries, Letters of Appreciation, Rewards received by him and annual Confidential Reports/Records excluding the Below Bench Mark Entries such as Good/Satisfactory, average and in addition the Annual Confidential Reports for the preceding years to the extent necessary at the earliest and at any rate before the date of meeting of the Selection Committee for making selection for the vacancies to the Indian Police Service (Kerala) cadre on promotion quota for the year 2010 enabling the selection committee to select the applicant to Indian Police Service (Kerala) cadre on promotion quota.
B. To declare that the applicant is eligible and qualified to be considered for selection and appointment to Indian Police Service (Kerala) cadre on promotion quota against the vacancies that had been determined for the year 2010 and to direct the Selection Committee to consider and select the applicant to Indian Police Service (Kerala) cadre on promotion quota by treating the Below Bench Mark Entries such as Good/Satisfactory/Average containing in Annexure A8 (A) to Annexure A8(F) as Outstanding/Very Good in Annual Confidential Reports/Records.
C. Any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. The applicant submitted that there are no adverse entries in his ACRs; no disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him. Therefore, the State of Kerala is bound to forward his integrity certificate to the UPSC. As the below bench mark entries such as good/satisfactory are recorded without notice, the State of Kerala is bound to expunge the same and declare that he has been graded as outstanding/very good. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal has passed orders to consider his representation in this regard. The entry such as good/satisfactory for the periods from 1.10.2002 to 31.10.2002, 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 and 9.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 were recorded without notice and without giving an opportunity of being heard which are contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India - 2008 (8) SCC 725. He was superseded from the year 2005 onwards on the ground that he was under cloud on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and punishment of censure. The punishment of censure has been set aside and he is fully exonerated from the allegations. Justice demands that the grading of good may be reviewed and the applicant may be declared selected for the year 2010 in preference to his juniors. He relied on the interim order of this Tribunal dated 4.5.2011 in OA No. 366 of 2011 and also on the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 132 of 2012 to buttress his contentions.
3. The 3rd respondent in their reply statement submitted that the ACRs of various spells of the applicant mentioned in the OA had been communicated to him properly and he had acknowledged the same. He did not express his disagreement or represent against the assessment made. At this distance of time it has become time barred. In the judgment in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and other cases the Apex Court had ordered that every entry in the ACRs of the public servant must be communicated to him. In the present case the entries recorded in the ACRs of the applicant were communicated to him properly and he had duly acknowledged them. The applicant did not file any appeal against those entries. The integrity certificate of the applicant was withheld as his total service in the department was found to be unsatisfactory with reference to his ACRs. As directed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in the order in OA No. 221 of 2012 filed by the applicant he was heard in person on 17.5.2012. As he could not substantiate his contentions with evidence to justify that during the relevant period he has made outstanding contributions to treat him as outstanding/very good his representation was rejected. The applicant in this OA is not at all eligible for the benefits of the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 366 of 2011 dated 4.5.2011 as the facts of the cases defer. It is the prerogative of the selection committee to decide the selection of officers according to their over all service and merit. An officer included in the zone of consideration need not be selected for the sole reason that he is included in the zone of consideration and the State Government had issued integrity certificate. The applicant had committed serious insubordination and misconduct quite unbecoming of a police officer before the Chief Secretary on 25.9.2012. An inquiry conducted into the incident proved that he had behaved rudely and impolitely towards the Chief Secretary. He was reinstated in service owing to the magnanimity of the Chief Secretary as both the Chief Secretary and the applicant were to retire shortly.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The main prayer of the applicant is to direct the State of Kerala to forward his integrity certificate to the Union Public Service Commission which has been with held. For the sake of convenience the relevant Regulations 5(4) & 5(5) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955 is reproduced as under:-
"5(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as 'outstanding' 'very good' 'Good' or 'Unfit' as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records. 5(5) The list shall be prepared by including the required number of names, first from among the officers finally classified as 'outstanding' them from among those similarly classified as 'Very Good' and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as 'Good' and the order of names inter se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Police Service:
Provided that the name of any officer so included in the list shall be treated as provisional of the State Government, withholds the integrity certificate in respect of such officer of any proceedings are contemplated or pending against him or anything adverse against him has come to the notice of the State Government."
6. The name of the applicant is included in the list of eligible officers for consideration for promotion to the IPS. The applicant's integrity certificate is not forwarded to the UPSC. As per Regulation 5(5) quoted above the integrity certificate can be withheld if any proceedings are contemplated or pending against him or anything adverse against him has come to the notice of the State Government. The State Government had found that the applicant's total service in the Department was not at all outstanding or very good. The comparative merit of the applicant did not come up to the mark for selection to the IPS by promotion. There is no mention about pending or contemplated inquiry against the applicant. But it has been noticed that in spite of being a police officer he could not keep decency or decorum in his words or deeds. On 25.9.2012 he has committed serious insubordination and misconduct quite unbecoming of a police officer before the Chief Secretary. He was suspended and an inquiry conducted proved that he was guilty. The reinstatement of the applicant in service was only due to the magnanimity on the part of the Chief Secretary who was to retire on 31.10.2012. This incident is covered under clause "anything adverse against him has come to the notice of the State Government". Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the State Government as regards withholding the integrity certificate of the applicant in the above context.
7. Withholding of the integrity certificate does not affect effective consideration of the applicant for induction into the IPS by the selection committee because when integrity certificate is with held in respect of a candidate he is placed in the provisional list on finding that he is fit for selection to the IPS on the basis of assessment based on his ACRs and service records and competitive merit. Under Regulation 7(4) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the select list shall remain in force till 31st day of December of the year in which the meeting of the selection committee was held or up to sixty days from the date of approval of the select list by the Commission whichever is latter. The non- forwarding of the integrity certificate has not prejudiced the applicant as of now.
8. The applicant has also prayed for forwarding full service records containing good service entries, letter of appreciation, rewards received by him, ACRs excluding below bench mark entries and also to declare that he is eligible and qualified for consideration for promotion to the IPS. It is the function of the selection committee to decide the selection of an officer as per rules and guidelines. The selection committee is an expert committee. The Courts are not expected to give directions to the selection committee. In UPSC Vs. L.P. Tiwari - 2006 (12) SCC 317 the Apex Court observed as under:-
"12. It is now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with by the courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. Such view was reiterated as late as in 2005 in UPSC v. K. Rajaiah (2005) 10 SCC 15 wherein the aforesaid Regulations for the purpose of promotion to the IPS cadre were under consideration."
9. Again in Union of India Vs. S.K. Goel - 2007 (14) SCC 641, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"We hold that DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the interference by the High Court is not called for.
e. Union of India vs. A.K. Narula, 2007 (11) SCC 10, has observed that "the guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in Confidential Reports, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in Confidential Reports. DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, malafides or arbitrariness, that the selection calls for interference. Where DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of assessment by DPC, the Court will not interfere."
10. In the light of the above we do not consider it a fit case for direction to the selection committee to assess the records forwarded to it in a particular way as prayed for by the applicant. He had an opportunity to represent against the assessment of his performance as recorded in his ACR but he did not do so at the relevant time. As directed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 221 of 2012 the representation of the applicant dated 30.11.2011 was considered by the State of Kerala. He was also given personal hearing. He could not substantiate his contentions with evidence to justify that he had made outstanding contributions to treat him as outstanding.
11. Reliance of the applicant on the interim order of this Tribunal dated 4.5.2011 in OA No. 366 of 2011 was misplaced on the ground that the preparation of the CR in that case was irregular which is not the case here. In OA No. 132 of 2012 the applicant was in the provisional select list. His integrity certificate was certified earlier. There were no materials warranting withholding of the integrity certificate of the applicant in OA No. 132 of 2012. Thus, the factual matrix of this OA being different the direction of this Tribunal in the said case is of no assistance to the applicant.
12. In the result we do not find any merit in the OA. Accordingly, the OA fails and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (DR. K.B.S. RAJAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"