Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Swati S. Patil vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 2033/2010
New Delhi this the 11th day of February, 2011.
Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Mrs. Swati S. Patil,
W/o Shri Shrikant,
R/o E-03, Golden Enclave,
Next to Manipal Hospital,
Old Airport Road, Bangaluru.
Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.K.Gupta )
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA),
Income Tax Department,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Central Revenue Building,
Queens Road, Bangluru. Respondents
(By Advocate Shri V.S.R.Krishna )
O R D E R
Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
The Applicant, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (1974 batch) and presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax, is seeking direction to the Respondents not to consider her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2003-04 for promotion, in which she has been given 'Good' grading, which is below the prescribed benchmark of 'Very Good' for promotion. The aforesaid ACR has been communicated to the Applicant by communications dated 12.05.2010 of the first Respondent, Department of Revenue, Government of India for making representation against the below benchmark grading in that ACR. The contention of the Applicant is that the aforesaid ACR has not been reviewed by the reviewing authority and has not been accepted also by the accepting authority and that it has been written only at one level of the reporting authority. The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the matter was squarely covered by the judgement of this Tribunal in OA number 24/2007, Ashok Kumar Aneja V. Union of India and others, decided on 20.11.2008 and OA number 253/2009, Balvinder Singh V. Union of India and others, decided on 26.03.2010.
2. It was held in Ashok Kumar Aneja (supra) thus:
4. In so far the second issue regarding an ACR being incomplete without being reviewed and in such circumstances it not being advisable for the DPC to consider such ACR is concerned, the matter has been considered by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Shri A.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others, OA No.673/2004 decided on 9.01.2007. The aforesaid learned Bench has taken into consideration the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Kashi Nath Kher, AIR 1996 SC 1328, which is reproduced below :
15. It would appear that the confidential reports and character rolls are being prepared by the officers of the same rank in the same MMGS-II working in the establishment department over the same cadre officers working elsewhere and the reporting officers are the same. Ms. Nisha is right and the High Court is well justified in holding that such a procedure is violative of the principles of natural justice. Such procedure and practice is obviously pernicious and pregnant with prejudices and manipulative violating the principles of natural justice and highly unfair. The object of writing confidential report is two fold, i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. This Court in Delhi Transport Corporation's case (AIR 1991 SC 101) pointed out pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to lack of objectives by the controlling officer. Confidential and character reports should, therefore, be written by superior officers higher above the cadres. The officer should show objectively, impartially and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. Therefore, they should be written by superior officer of high rank, who are such high rank officers is for the appellant to decide. The appellants have to prescribe the officer competent to write the confidentials. There should be another higher officer in rank above the officer who has written confidential report to review such report. The appointing authority or any equivalent officer would be competent to approve the confidential reports or character rolls. This procedure would be fair and reasonable. The reports thus written would form basis for consideration for promotion. The procedure presently adopted is clearly illegal, unfair and unjust. (emphasis added) The Ahmedabad Bench thereafter has held thus :
12. We are accordingly of the view that the ACR is required to be recorded at two levels and in case one of the levels is not available then the said ACR can not be treated as complete. In the instant case there is an additional factor referred to above. (emphasis added)
13. We are accordingly of the view that the ACR of applicant for the year 2002-03 is not complete and hence can not be considered for promotion to the next higher rank.
3. In both the above mentioned OAs, directions were given to the Respondents to ignore the ACR, which had been written only at the level of the reporting officer and not reviewed, as incomplete and consider the ACR of an earlier year, while considering the applicants therein for promotion.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondents, when confronted with this situation, has not been able to contradict the contention that the instant OA is fully covered by the aforementioned judgements.
5. For parity of reasons the same direction is to be given in this OA also. We, therefore, direct the Respondents to consider the ACR of the year 2003-04 non est for the purpose of consideration of the Applicant for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. An earlier ACR should be considered, while considering the Applicant for promotion.
6. The OA is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There will be no orders as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) ( L.K.Joshi ) Member (J) Vice Chairman (A) /dkm/