Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kuldeep Singh Chauhan vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 2 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 958/2011 New Delhi, this the 2nd day of November, 2011 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER(J) HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER(A) Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, S/o Shri Paras Rai, R/o C-152, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. .. Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Secretary (Personnel), Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. 3. The Joint Director, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. P.K. Gupta) ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs.Meera Chhibber,Member(J) Applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to produce the original record including the DPC proceedings, ACRs of the applicant and DPC note submitted by the department, before the Honble Tribunal for adjudication of the case.
(ii) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 4.2.2011 and also pass an order of quashing the DPC proceedings of the year 2001, held on 19.9.2001 for promotion to the post of UDC under LDCE quota and consequently pass an order of conducting review DPC and reconsider the case of the applicant along with other suitable candidates, after treating the ACRs of the applicant as Very Good for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and grant all the consequential benefits of promotion, seniority, fixation of pay, arrears of difference of pay and allowances etc. from the due date i.e. from the date of original DPC as granted to other selected persons.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that in the year 2001, respondents had conducted Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as LDCE) for promotion to the post of UDC. Since applicant was eligible, he appeared and secured highest marks in the written examination yet he was not given promotion because of his lower ACR grading as compared to other persons, who were selected. 4 persons, namely, Shri Yaswant Singh, Shri Damoder Singh Rawat, Smt. Sonia Rana and Smt. Amarjett Kaur Kakker were promoted while applicant was placed at Sl.No.5.
3. In the year 2009-2010, Government of India, for the first time, introduced the provision of Inspection of the ACR and for supplying the same to the employee so that they know their shortcomings. It was under this provision that applicant got the authenticated copies of the ACRs for the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2002 on 9.11.2010 and was also allowed to inspect the file.
4. After going through the record, applicant came to know that 17 candidates had appeared in the written examination, 9 candidates had qualified out of which applicant had secured the highest marks, i.e., 125 out of 200 marks. However, he was placed at Sl.No.5 after the evaluation of his CRs. The evaluation of three ACRs was done by giving 30 marks for Outstanding, 24 marks for Very Good and 17 marks for Good. The ACRs which were considered by the Committee were for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Applicant found that he had been awarded 51 marks for the three years ACR by treating all the CRs as Good for three years. However, on inspection of the records, he found a fraud had been committed by someone against the applicant inasmuch as for the ACR of 1998-99, the reporting officer had assessed the applicant as Very Good which was agreed to by the reviewing officer. However, in the ultimate column, the reviewing officer had mentioned that he is a good officer, who performed his job well. This CR was treated as Good with mala fide intention which is evident from the fact that the proforma depicting the comparative grading of all the candidates carry white fluid against the grade of the applicant at the alphabet V before the alphabet G, as a result of which he was given lesser marks by the DPC than the marks which he deserved otherwise.
5. Similarly his ACR for the year 1999-2000 was also tampered with, inasmuch as in the original ACR, he was graded Very Good by the reporting officer. However, after putting the white fluid somebody had written Good. The handwriting/manner in which Good was written distinctively varied from the word Good written in the other parts of his ACR by the original reporting officer. The reporting officer writes fluently and never writes in bigger letters. He has thus stated that this was done by someone with mala fide intention to deprive him of his promotion. He further relied on the remarks given by the reviewing officer who had also specifically written that Shri Chauhan is an intelligent and hardworking and found always devoted/sincere to his duties. He is most suitable for Reception, public relations, protocol and general coordination functions. He has thus stated that his ACR for 1999-2000 was fraudulently forged either at the time of DPC or just before DPC by someone changing his grading as Good from Very Good as a result of which applicant again got lesser marks in the DPC. Had both these ACRs been treated as Very Good, he would have secured more marks and would have been promoted. Applicant was ultimately given promotion as UDC only on 25.12.2008 as per his seniority. Had applicant not seen his documents, he would have never known about it but after seeing those documents he gave a representation dated 20.12.2010 to the Secretary followed by reminder dated 7.1.2011. However, without referring to the matter to the reporting officer, to know the truth, his representation was rejected on 4.2.2011 by stating the proceedings of DPC were in order (page 12).
6. Respondents have opposed the OA by stating as follows:-
As per procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules, the post of UDC in DIT is filled up by two modes, i.e., by Seniority Promotion and by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). In order to fill up the post through LDCE, vacancies are notified through a circular by the Personnel Division giving details of posts to be filled up. Applications from eligible candidates are invited for further processing/scrutiny. Thereafter, the eligible candidates are called for taking examination. The LDCE consists of two parts, i.e., Part-I (written Exam) and Part-II (ACR). After qualifying the written part of the examination, as per the prescribed standards, the meeting of DPC is to be conducted which evaluates the candidates on the basis of assessment of ACRs. DPC allocates marks to each candidate ion the basis of its evaluation and after taking into account the total marks acquired by the candidate in both parts of the examination (Part-I Written and Part-II ACRs). Based on this criteria, the merit list is prepared on the basis of overall marks in both parts, i.e. the candidate who gets highest marks gets the Ist position and rest follow in descending order. Finally, after taking into account the total number of vacancies notified in the circular, the appointment of candidates are made. That the LDCE for promotion to the post of UDC is conducted in the following two parts:
Part-I: Written Examination carrying a maximum of 200 marks in the subjects shown below:-
Paper-I: Essay and Precise Writing 50 marks.
Paper-II: Noting and Drafting and Office Procedure 100 marks Paper-III: General Awareness 50 marks Part-III: Evaluation of record of service of the candidate and awarding of marks by a DPC within a maximum of 100 marks.
Shri K.S. Chauhan, UDC has secured 125 marks out of 200 marks in Part-I, i.e., Written Exam. And 51 marks out of 100 marks in Part-II, i.e., ACRs, thus aggregating to a total of 176 marks out of 300 marks. On the basis of total marks of 176 secured in both the parts, Shri Chauhan was placed on the fifth position in the merit list prepared by the DPC. The first four candidates ahead of Shri Chauhan in order of merit had secured more marks than Shri Chauhan and were, therefore, promoted to the next grade. The marks (copy of DPC minutes enclosed as Annexure-III) of the four candidates who got promotions ahead of Shri Chauhan may kindly be perused in the following statement:
Sl.No. Name of the candidate Part-I marks secured by the candidates in the written examination out of 200 marks Part-II marks on evaluation of the ACRs awarded out of 100 marks Total marks out of 300 marks
1. Sh. Yashwant Singh (SC) 116 90 206
2. Sh. Damodar Singh Rawat 115 90 205
3. Smt. Sonia Rana 119 72 191
4. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur Kakkar (SC) 96 90 186 ACRs of Shri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan for the three financial years from 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committees (copies of the ACRs enclosed as Annexure-I). With regard to Col.14 and Col.5 of ACRs, regarding overall grading by the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer, in respect of three years in question, the following may be perused:-
ACR for the year Remarks by the Reporting Officer Part-III : (Col.14 of ACR) Grading (Outstanding/Very Good/Average/Below Average) Remarks by the Reviewing Officer Part-IV : (Col.5 of ACR) General remarks with specific comments about the general remarks given by the Reporting Officer and remarks about the meritorious work, including grading. Remarks 1998-1999 Very Good (written in full hand) A Good Officer, who performs his job quite well (written in hand) The overall grading has been taken as Good going by overall calculation of marks awarded by the DPC 1999-2000 Good (written in full, in hand) He is an intelligent and hardworking and found always devoted/sincere to the duties (written in hand) The use of correcting fluid, ion top of Col.14, on the pre-printed Very Good could possibly be a result of intentional correction on the part of the Reporting Officer. However, it hardly makes any different as the word Good has been written in full, in hand against that Column by the Reporting Officer. The overall grading has been taken as Good going by overall calculation of marks awarded by the DPC.
2000-2001 Good (written in full, in hand) The report is fair and just (Written in hand). There is no confusion in consideration of the ACR for this particular year as the ACR rating as Good has been given by the Reporting Officer and the same has been endorsed by the Reviewing Officer. The DPC has also taken the ACR rating as Good while making the assessment of the ACRs.
As per the Government Instructions, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) can make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the ACRs and should not be guided by the overall grading only (copy of instructions is enclosed as Annexure-Ii). The DPC have considered the above ACRs of the applicant as Good and awarded him the marks accordingly, therefore, the OA calls for no interference. The same may accordingly be dismissed.
7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the original CRs also. Perusal of same shows the reporting officer during the relevant period was Jaspal Singh, Security Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi-3, who, we are informed is still available in the office. Since there is while fluid placed on Very Good which is not initialled and Good also seems to have been written in a different way, it was best to obtain his comments on the subject specially when respondents enquired into the matter and have recorded as follows:-
Reference (B) sidelines on page 4/ante.
The ACR for the year 1999-2000 appears to have been tampered with. The application of correcting fluid on page 5 against Column No.14 about the grading of Very Good is existing. Further, the writing of grading as Good in ink seems to be distinct and different from the word Good wherever appearing in other columns at page 3 of the ACR for the said year.
8. From the reply filed by the respondents, it is seen they have stated that the DPC enjoys full discretion. No body can dispute this preposition. However, the question here is slightly different to the extent that a manipulated CR is alleged to have been placed before the DPC, therefore, it should first be looked into whether the CR for 1999-2000 was tampered with or the reporting officer had himself written Good. The best person who can comment on this would be the reporting officer himself, therefore, this O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to show the CRs of applicant to Shri Jaspal Singh as mentioned above and seek his comments explaining the apprehension of the applicant. In case, he states that he had assessed the applicant as Very Good and the remark Good was not written by him, it definitely would be serious matter calling for further probe in the matter at appropriate level. That apart, in that event the case of applicant with the remarks of reporting officer should be placed before the review DPC so that the matter may be reconsidered in view of correct assessment and appropriate orders passed on the basis of recommendation of review DPC. This exercise should be completed within four months. In case the reporting officer states that Good was written by him in the CR 1999-2000, it should also be communicated to the applicant within the above stipulated period.
9. With the above directions, O.A. stands disposed of. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
Rakesh