Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
T.K.Aryavir vs Union Of India on 5 September, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.4045/2012 Order Reserved on: 02.09.2014 Order pronounced on 05.09.2014 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) T.K.Aryavir H.No.614, Sector-29 Noida (U.P.)-201301. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Biraju Mahapatra) Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary Department of Posts Ministry of Communication & Information and Technology Dak Bhawan New Delhi 110 001. 2. Director General cum Secretary Department of Posts Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Katyal) O R D E R
Aggrieved by the Office Memorandum dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure A1), in rejecting the representation of the applicant, for upgrading the ACR gradings for the years 1997-1998, and 2000-2001 of the applicant, the present OA has been filed.
2. In compliance of the Orders of the Honble High Court of Delhi dated 21.12.2010 in WP(C) No.5636/2003, the respondents communicated the uncommunicated and below benchmark ACRs of the applicant for the years 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 2000-2001, vide proceedings dated 14.02.2011. The applicant preferred representation dated 10.03.2011 in respect of the ACRs for the years 1997-1998 and 2000-2001 and prayed for upgradation of the grading of `Good to `Very Good. The respondents rejected the same by passing the impugned order dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure A1).
3. Heard Shri Biraja Mahapatra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Katyal, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in respect of the ACR for the year 1997-1998, it was written as two Parts, i.e., from 01.04.1997 to 11.11.1997 and from 13.11.1997 to 31.03.1998. In respect of the first part, she was awarded the grading of `Good and in respect of the second part, she was awarded `Very Good.
5. In view of DoPT OM No.19/1/86-PP dated 06.01.1989, if more than one ACR has been written for a particular year, ordinarily, the final grading given by the Reporting/Reviewing authority shall be accepted by the Committee, unless they are good reasons to depart from that grading. Since in the final part of ACR for the year 1997-1998, she was awarded `Very Good, the same should be awarded to him by upgrading the grading of `Good to `Very Good.
6. In respect of the ACR for the year 2000-2001, the learned counsel submits that during the said period the applicant was working as Deputy Director General (PG&QM) and settled more percentage of complaints than the previous years. She was awarded `Very Good in the previous year, but granting only `Good, though she settled more percentage of complaints, is unsustainable.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the ACR for the year 1997-1998 would submit that the Committee referred in DoPT OM dated 06.01.1989 is the Departmental Promotion Committee but not the competent authority which considered the representation of the applicant. Hence, the said OM has no application at the stage of considering his representation.
8. It is submitted in respect of the ACR for the year 2000-2001 that the reporting officer has made number of comments about the officers underwhelming performance, and while agreeing with the self appraisal, termed the targets modest and commented that the applicant could carry out the routine monitoring in response to continued and repetitive reminders and that with a little more self assurance and confidence, her performance would have been better. Since the applicant was reporting directly to the Reporting Officer, the said comments carry weight and cannot be set aside. However, in respect of the contention of the applicant that she cleared more complaints than the preceding years, the respondents stated that since the issue is more than 10 years old, the records/data are not available to verify the figures indicated by the applicant.
9. It is further submitted that in view of the detailed reasons given while rejecting the representation of the applicant, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that this Tribunal cannot substitute its view with that of the Reporting/Reviewing and countersigning authorities and in this regard, he placed reliance on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2948/2011 dated 18.08.2011.
11. A bare perusal of the relevant portion of the DoPT OM dated 06.01.1989, clearly supports the contention of the respondents. The Committee referred in the said OM is the Departmental Promotion Committee but not the authority which considers the representation of an employee seeking upgradation of ACR gradings. Further, even without the availability of records pertaining to the statistics of settling the complaints by the applicant, but in view of the various comments and observations made by the Reporting Officer in respect of the ACR for the year 2000-2001, the applicant is not entitled for the relief prayed for.
12. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.
(V. Ajay Kumar) Member (J) /nsnrvak/