Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Sukh Pal Singh vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 12 September, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3911/2012
Reserved on : 09.09.2013.
Pronounced on :12.09.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Dr. Sukh Pal Singh,
S/o Sh. Jai Pal Singh Ahluwalia,
R/o 141, Sant Nagar,
Post Office Siriniwaspuri,
New Delhi-65. . Applicant
(through Sh. Deepender Hooda, Advocate)
Versus
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Through its Director General,
Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
2. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Through its Secretary,
Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
3. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Through its Director (Personnel),
Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
4. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Through its Deputy Secretary (Personnel),
Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
5. Dr. Gurant Singh Sandhu,
HEAD, NBSS & LUPKRISHI ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN,
IARI CAMPUS(PUSA),
NEW Delhi-12. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Gagan Mathur for Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) This is second round of litigation. Earlier aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not appointing him as Head of Regional Centre, NBSS & LUP, New Delhi, the applicant had filed OA-3162/2011. This was decided in favour of the applicant on 23.04.2012. The operative part of the order was as follows:-
11. On the basis of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there was no valid basis for the respondents in not issuing the appointment letter in the name of the applicant for appointment as Head of NBSS & LUP, Regional Centre, Delhi. The applicant has scored the highest marks as per the parameters of the ASRB. The marks were much more than then the marks allotted to Respondent No. 7 and the ASRB has recommended the name of the applicant for appointment on the post. The appointment was no given to the applicant on the ground that the name of the applicant was not recommended by the ASRB but the appointment was not given to him on the ground that the post of Head was a semi research managerial and sensitive post and it is the discretion of the respondents-ICAR to give appointments to a suitable person. That the complaints were received against the applicant subsequently, but we have commented above that anonymous complaints were received against the applicant and the sender of the complaint has not dared to disclose his name and the respondents themselves admitted that cognizance was not taken by them in the complaints. Hence, this cannot be a ground for refusal of appointment to the applicant on the post of Head, NBSS & LUP. Moreover, it has also been alleged that AARs of the applicant were not available for the relevant period. Firstly, it is material to state that the candidature of the applicant was not rejected by the Board ASRB as AARs were not available for the relevant period. However, the applicant has stated that AARs were submitted well within time to Dr. J.P. Sharma, Head of New Delhi and it is wrong to allege that the AARs were not available. Rest of the contentions alleged by the respondents for denial of appointment to the applicant are not justified and the respondents are not justified in refusing the applicant to give appointment. We are of the opinion that the applicant has proved his case and the O.A. deserves to be allowed.
12. The OA is allowed and the appointment of Respondent No. 7 on the post of Head, NBSS & LUP, Regional Centre, Delhi dated 8.11.2010 is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to appoint the applicant on the post of Head, NBSS & LUP, Regional Centre, Delhi according to the recommendations of the ASRB contained in the letter dated 27.08.2010. The respondents are directed to comply with the order within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. No order as to costs. 1.1 The respondents challenged this order before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition No. 4311/2012. This was decided on 23.07.2012. Honble High Court directed as follows:-
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator/respondent. After considering the submissions made by them we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the direction that instead of the Tribunals direction that the respondent herein be appointed to the post of Head, NBSS and LUP Regional Centre, New Delhi, we feel that it would be appropriate that the petitioner should consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the said post after verifying the antecedents and medical examination, if not already done, in terms of Paragraph 4 of the recommendation dated 27.08.2010 which is to be found at Page 97 of the paper book.
This exercise be completed within a period of four weeks. The respondent shall be informed of the result of the verification as indicated above. The assessment which has to take place in terms indicated above shall be done without referring to any observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 passed in O.A.No. 3162/2011.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 1.2 In compliance of the above order of the Honble High Court the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2012 by which the respondents have again declined to appoint the applicant as Head of Regional Centre, NBSS & LUP. Aggrieved by this, the present O.A. has been filed before this Tribunal.
2. We have heard both parties and have perused the material on record.
3. In our opinion, the order passed by the respondents is in total violation of the order of the Honble High Court of Delhi. It is seen from the facts of the case that this Tribunal vide its order dated 23.04.2012 had quashed the appointment of Dr. Gujrant Singh Sidhu-respondent No.7 in OA-3162/2011 and had directed that the applicant be appointed. The Honble High Court of Delhi had modified the order only to the extent of saying that the applicant be considered for appointment after his medical examination and verification of his antecedents. Thus, it was not open to the respondents to reject the candidature of the applicant on any other ground except his failure in the medical examination or something adverse coming to notice during verification of his antecedents. However, it is clear from the impugned order that nothing adverse was found against the applicant either in medical examination or in verification of his character and antecedents. On the other hand his candidature was rejected on several other grounds mentioned in Para-9 of the impugned order. These are extracted below:-
9. Whereas in compliance of the said orders the entire issue has been considered again with specific reference to verifying the antecedents and medical examination etc. of the applicant, as brought out in subsequent paragraphs.
9.1 Whereas the initial medical examination and detailed verification of character and antecedents through the concerned district/police authorities is done for any government employee on his initial appointment in service. Whereas in cases of lateral entry/direct selection based on interview only, as in the instant case, the earlier medical examination by a specified medical board, as applicable for Group A employees, read with the ACR entries on Health hold good. As explained in para 9.3 and 9.4 below, Dr. S.P. Singh did not submit his APARs for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 to all and reporting officer finally initiated them on his own and submitted them in August, 2010.
9.2 Whereas Dr. S.P. Singh fulfils the relevant prescribed essential qualifications for this position.
9.3 Whereas it emerges from the application folder forwarded by the ASRB that the Board have considered the gradings of very good in the APAR for the year 2004-05 only. The Board had not considered the gradings in the APARs for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09, as they were not made available to them. Whereas, on subsequent enquiry, it emerged that the applicant Dr. S.P. Singh had not submitted his APARs at all for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09.
9.4 Whereas in the absence of timely submission of the self appraisal by the applicant, the concerned Reporting Officer had no option but to initiate APARs himself as per instructions on this subject. Accordingly, all these ACRs/APARs have been initiated by the reporting officer in August, 2010 after repeated reminders failed to evoke any response from the concerned officer. As a result, the APARs of the officer were available neither with ASRB when interview took place in August, 2010, nor to the ICAR when it examined the recommendations of the Board in Agust September, 2010.
9.5 Subsequently, when the APARs were made available to the Council by the Director in May, 2011, the following adverse entries have been noted:-
Remained absent from duty unauthorisedly from 23.9.2005 onwards.
Unauthorised possession of official and auditable documents which have not been handed over so far.
There has been misconduct, indiscipline and unauthorized encroachment of Heads chambers.
Non submission of progress of work.
Using derogatory and authoritative language in official communication addressed to controller officer.
Breaking of office lock and creating nuisance.
Remained absent frequently without information and did not submit leave applications.
Non submission of progress reports for review by SRC, IRC.
Making correspondence directly to higher authorities without observing proper protocol and authorized channels of communication.
9.6 Whereas in all these APARs, the applicant has been consistently graded below average. These are presently under review.
9.7 Whereas, had these reports been available timely with the ASRB, the applicant may not have even been called for the interview by the preliminary screening committee. The ASRB have considered only one APAR prior to these crucial five years which will not be complete and a true reflection of the applicant. The fact remains that the applicant had not submitted his self appraisal deliberately for some years which in itself is an adverse comment on the conduct of an officer aspiring to hold a research managerial post of a sensitive nature. It also seems obvious that Dr. S.P. Singh did not submit his APARs for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 because he anticipated the adverse entries and/or below average rating.
9.8 Whereas the applicant for reasons best known to him stopped attending office w.e.f. 23.9.2005. Ultimately eh joined on 17.4.2006 i.e. after more than 200 days. Thus he has remained on leave without sanction for more than 200 days. This conduct on the part of the applicant is also not appreciable and not commensurate with the behaviour of a Group A officer and suitable action under rules is being taken against him.
9.9 Whereas the Agricultural Research Scientists Forum (ARSSF) had made a specific complaint, duly signed by the then President of a Forum, about some verifiable facts of misconduct and creating indiscipline by the applicant which were found to be correct on discreet enquiry.
4. In our considered opinion the order of the respondents, being in total violation of the Honble High Courts order, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the applicant as Head, Regional Centre, NBSS & LUP within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/