Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S S Chawla vs M/O Urban Development on 12 April, 2023
1
O.A. No.62/2016
Item No.37
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.62/2016
Wednesday, this the 12th day of April, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
S S Chawla, aged about 55 years,
Assistant Manager (F)
s/o late Shri Gurumukh Singh
R/o B-4/337, Ist Floor, Sector 8
Rohini, New Delhi - 110 085
...Applicant
(Mr. B L Wanchoo, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
2. National Building Construction Corp
Through
Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
3. Shri A Nageshwar Rao (Empl. Code 3367)
Manager (Finance)
NBCC Ltd.
Vibgyor Towers, Ground Floor
Action Area-1, CE-11, New Town
Rajarhat, Kolkata 700 156
...Respondents
(Mr. S K Tripathi for Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Advocate for
respondent No.1 and Mr. G G Kashyap, Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 & 3 with Mr. Ajay Pandey, Manager
(Law), Departmental Representative)
2
O.A. No.62/2016
Item No.37
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. Mohd. Jamshed:
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the grading given to him in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2000-01, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 and claims that gradings awarded in these years are mala fide and unlawful; and the same, therefore, should be quashed and set aside. In fact, the applicant is seeking multiple reliefs by filing the present O.A., which are as under:-
"(a) Quash and set aside impugned order No.HRM/PRP/EC/2014/1686 dated 08.04.2015.
(b) Declare the ACR Grading of the applicant for the period 2000-01, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 malafide, thus unlawful and thereafter, quash and set aside the adverse remarks.
(c) Direct the respondents to consider the ACR of the applicant for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 instead for 2001-01 since applicant was due for promotion in 1999-2000 whereas his junior had became eligible one year later and no separate panel placing the select panel of the earlier year 1999-2000 panel above the next year panel of 2000-01 was made.
(d) Direct the respondents to restore the seniority of the applicant above the respondent No.3, Sh. A 3 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37 Nageshwar Rao in the DPC Panel of 1999-2000 who was junior to the applicant and belonged to the panel of 2000-2001 by intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(e) Direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Asstt. Manager (Finance) in the DPC of 2006-07.
(f) After quashing and setting aside the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period 2005-06, 2006-
07 and 2007-08 and direct the respondent No.2 to consequently grant applicant PRP w.e.f. 05.03.2009 and next promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Finance) w.e.f. 5.3.2009 the date his junior (Respondent No.3) was promoted.
(g) Direct the respondents to grant the promotion to the post of Manager (Finance) in the DPC of 2014-15 in which his junior R-3 has been promoted.
(h) Direct the respondents grant interest @12% per annum to the pay fixation arrears on promotion from the date of his juniors.
(i) Pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(j) Allow cost in favour of the applicant."
3. The applicant is not only seeking quashing and setting aside of the grading given to him in the ACRs but to consider other ACRs, restoring his seniority, promoting him in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) of 2006-07 as Assistant Manager (Finance), and also after quashing and setting aside the ACRs, grant him Performance Related Promotion (PRP) w.e.f. 05.03.2009 4 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37 by promoting him as Deputy Manager (Finance) with effect from the said date; and further promotion as Manager (Finance) in the DPC of 2014-15, etc. His primary grievance is relating to the ACR grading for the above mentioned periods.
4. The applicant joined as Office Assistant Grade II (Accounts) in National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) Limited on 25.06.1982. He was promoted as Assistant Manager (Finance) in March, 2009 on the basis of DPC for the year 2006-07. It is submitted that in view of the grading in the ACRs, his subsequent promotions have been withheld, and that he should have been promoted as Deputy Manager (Finance) and Manager (Finance) along with his juniors.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant was graded 'A' & 'B' in the ACR prior to the one of 2000-01 as well as after 2000-01, which clearly proves that sudden downgradation of applicant's ACRs was due to prejudice. Our attention was drawn to the ACRs for the relevant periods, which have also been enclosed. It is also alleged that the downgradation of 5 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37 ACRs has been done with mala fide intention on part of the concerned officers.
6. In support his arguments, the applicant has also relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Mukund Purushottam Jaeel v. Union of India & others (O.A. No.485/2012) decided on 10.04.2014 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Narendra Nath Sinha (Appeal (Civil) No.6007/2001) decided on 30.08.2001, primarily regarding the objectivity in writing of the ACRs. It has also been submitted that the applicant has been highlighting various irregularities of his organization, which may have resulted in the competent authority taking an adverse view of his performance and recording the same in the ACRs.
7. This is the second round of litigation. The applicant had earlier filed O.A. No.4483/2011 before this Tribunal. Vide order dated 05.12.2014, the said O.A. was disposed of directing respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order on the representation made by the applicant on 04/06.05.2011 regarding grant of pension under PRP Scheme of 2009 & 6 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37 against grading in the ACRs for 2000-01, 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The applicant is seeking similar relief yet again by filing the instant O.A. In paragraph 8 (f) of O.A., the subject matter of ACR upgradation for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 has been indicated. Be that as it may, it is observed that the respondents have passed a detailed order dated 08.04.2015, which has dealt with the issues raised by the applicant in his representation at length and in this recent order passed, explanations have been given with regard to non-extension of PRP Scheme, 2009 to the applicant and also about his grading in the ACRs of the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The applicant is seeking quashing of this order passed in terms of the Tribunal's order dated 05.12.2014 and practically seeking the same reliefs, which he had sought in the earlier O.A. He has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
8. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the order passed by the Tribunal in the earlier O.A. as also the records of this O.A. and heard learned counsel for the respective parties. We have also perused the copies of the relied upon ACRs.
7O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37
9. The respondents have opposed the O.A. by filing the counter reply. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the details of the year-wise ACRs of the applicant and the grading accorded as filed in the counter reply. It is once again reiterated that the applicant has sought the reliefs pertaining to his ACRs and DPC prior to 2005-06, whereas he had raised these grievances in O.A. No.4483/2011 for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-
08. Once he was challenging the grading in the earlier O.A. pertaining to the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007- 08, it is evident that he did not challenge his ACRs for the year 2000-01 and consideration of his ACRs of 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Be that as it may, it is observed from the counter reply filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 that the ACR of 2000-01 was graded as 'C' ('Good'), for the year 2005-06, although he did not submit his self-appraisal, it was graded as 'C' ('Good'); and for the year 2006-07, two ACRs were written and he was graded 'D' ('Average'). Remarks for this grading were also given in the ACR and even the advisory note was issued to the applicant expecting improvement of his performance. In the ACR from 03.10.2006 to 31.03.2007, he was finally graded 'C', 8 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37 for the year 2007-08, he was graded as 'C' and for the year 2008-09, he was graded as 'E'. Detailed remarks were given for these gradings by the competent authority. The appraisal reports for these years were written as per the procedure and by different assessing authorities, who gave remarks on his conduct and performance while appraising the reports for these years. The criterion for assessment in the respondent-organization is based on suitability and seniority for promotion. During assessment for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer in the DPC of 2000-01, his junior, based on his ACR and experience, secured more marks than the applicant and was accordingly promoted.
10. Further, the applicant being eligible was considered in the DPC of 2006-07 for promotion to the next higher position of Assistant Manager (Finance), however, he could not qualify on the basis of merit. The applicant was further considered eligible for promotion by DPC of 2012- 13 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance). Subsequently, in terms of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 07.03.2011 in W.P. (C) No.1494/2011, the respondents started providing copies 9 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37 of the ACRs. The applicant was also provided copies of the ACRs of five years, i.e., 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 and the representations were considered. The applicant also filed O.A. No.4483/2011 before this Tribunal. Vide order dated 05.12.2014, the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order on the representation made by the applicant against the grading in the ACRs for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the respondents considered the representation of the applicant and passed a detailed and reasoned order on 08.04.2015, which is impugned in this O.A.
11. We observe that the applicant has been filing cases before the Tribunal and also before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for more or less similar grievances. This was also reflected in the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.3431/2015. The same was dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2016. Records also reveal that the respondents have been considering his representations and providing required information, which is being obtained through Right to Information Act, 2005. 10 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37
12. Coming to the fact of writing of ACRs, the normal procedure is 3-tier system, i.e., assessment to be given by the reporting officer and thereafter reporting officer's assessment is considered by the reviewing officer and the accepting authority has to grant final assessment. The system also has provisions for writing of ACRs when one of the three is not available or has retired or having been transferred, etc. The details provided by the applicant and the respondents about ACRs under challenge and how the same has been dealt with, have been seen. It is an accepted fact that the applicant has made representations against the grading in the ACRs and the comments made therein, which have been duly considered by the respondents. In the previous round of litigation, the applicant had sought similar reliefs pertaining to the grading in ACRs and yet again the present O.A. has been filed, seeking multiple relief(s).
13. We have considered the detailed and speaking order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the respondents and do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same. The claim of the applicant seeking backdated promotions after many years by upgrading his ACRs is no more tenable. 11 O.A. No.62/2016 Item No.37
14. We do not find any merit in the O.A. filed by the applicant and the same is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Mohd. Jamshed ) ( Justice Ranjit More )
Member (A) Chairman
April 12, 2023
/sunil/