Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
P.S. Chopra vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... on 4 July, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A.NO. 694/PB/2011 Decided on: 04.07.2012 Coram: Honble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand, Member (J) Honble Mr. Ranbir Singh, Member (A) P.S. Chopra, Technical Officer (Retired), age 673/4 years, IMTECH, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh. Resident of Flat No. E-4968, Puncham Society, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
.Applicant Versus
1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi through its Director General.
2. The Director, Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH), Sector 39-A, Chandigarh.
3. The Administration Officer, and PIO, IMTECH, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh.
..Respondents Present: Applicant in person Mr. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the respondents Order (Oral) BY HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J)
1. A denial of favourable consideration on account of certain adverse observations in the relevant APARs, for the purpose of the promotion, impelled the applicant to file O.A. NO. 578/CH/2003. That O.A. came to be allowed, with the expunction of adverse portion of APARs for the period 1997-2000, vide order dated 01.01.2008. Thereafter, the applicant filed an MA 720/2009 requesting for the grant of a direction to the competent authority to upgrade the APARs following the expunction of the adverse portion of the APARs for the period aforementioned. That part of the request came to be declined by a learned Co-Ordinate Bench, vide order dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure A-2).
2. The applicant, thereafter, filed a plea for a review of the order dated 18.01.2010 and 01.01.2008 (Annexures A-2 & A-3) which, too, came to be negatived except to the extent that the correction of certain typographical errors was ordered. These facts are apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings raised by the learned counsel for the parties, and even otherwise, these are beyond the pale of controversy during the course of hearing.
3. Following the expunction of the adverse remarks, a review DPC was held but the culmination thereof, too, was not musical to the ears of the applicant inasmuch as the promotion came to be denied to him as he did not make the bench-mark. In the process of consideration, he was awarded 58 marks for his good APAR for the period 1995-96 and 71.25 for the very good rating for the period 1996-97 which made a total of 129.25 and average came out to be 64.62 marks. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the quantification of marks, vide Annexure 11-B was not in accord with the relevant instructions. In making that averment, learned counsel for the applicant draws sustenance from Annexure A-13 which provides the methodology on the basis thereof the marks for APAR would be granted on the basis of various assessments in the APAR. The relevant part of the documentation (Annexure A-13) is extracted hereunder:-
5.2.3. APAR marks will be awarded according to rating of the assessee on a seven point scale as under:-
Outstanding - 100 marks Excellent - 90 marks Very good - 75 marks Good - 60 marks Satisfactory - 50 marks Fair - 35 marks Poor - 20 marks
4. It is common ground that an employee assessed as very good can have been awarded marks varying from 75 to 89; while a public servant assessed as good can be awarded marks varying from 60 to 74. In the present case, the applicant was given 58 marks for the good assessment for the period 1995-96 and was awarded 71.25 marks for very good assessment for the period 1996-97. the grant of marks (58) below the minimum provided for a good rating (60) was thoroughly inappropriate. That quantification of marks would appear to be in violation of the rating indicated in the course of the extraction in the preceding para.
5. The applicant further argues that the competent authority ought to have proceeded to take three other APARs preceding the APAR for 1997, into consideration inasmuch as APAR for a period of five years had to be taken into consideration by the DPC. In support thereof reliance is placed upon the view obtained by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chitra Srinivasan Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Others (judgment dated 31.05.2010 in O.A. No. 606/2010). That judgment is quoted in June, 2011 edition of Swaysnews. It is further argued that the impugned consideration is vitiated because even the expunged remarks had been taking into account.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents states that it is only the expunged portion of the APARs for the period 1997-2000 which were taken into consideration. He further very fairly concedes that the APARs for the years preceding the APAR for the year 1997 were not taken into consideration. However, in the given circumstances of the case, the consideration of those APARs (in case of need) was authorized by the judgment rendered by the learned Principal Bench in the case of Chitra Srinivasan Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Others (supra).
7. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, we would allow this O.A., invalidate the consideration granted to the promotion case of the applicant vide Annexure A-1 and direct the competent authority to grant a consideration afresh in the context within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is presented in the office of the competent authority. In that consideration, cognizance must be taken of the observations made in the course of para 4, 5 and 6 this order.
8. We would like to make it clear that we are directing the cognizance aforementioned to be taken. It will be, however, be competent on the part of the competent authority to take any view thereof, completely unfettered by the quashment of the earlier view obtained by it.
9. Disposed of accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER (A) PLACE: Chandigarh Dated: 04.07.2012 mw
- 6- O.A. No. 694/PB/2011