Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Vimal Kumar Shukla vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 3 April, 2025
1
(Reserved on 30.01.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No. 1159 of 2019
Jabalpur, this the 03rd day of April, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Vimal Kumar Shukla, S/o Shri Chandra Bhushan Shukla, aged about
50 years, working as Engineering Assistant, R/o C/o Narayan Singh
Parmar, Bhavna Sugandh Bhandar, Thana Road, Dalli Rajhara, Balod
(CG) - 491228. -Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri J. B. Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, Room No. 655, A Wing, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti, Broadcasting Corporation of
India, Prasar Bharti Secretariate, Prasar Bharti House, Copernicus
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
3. D.G., Doordarshan, Room No. 523 (Tower -A), Doordarshan
Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
4. ADG (E), West Zone, Television Maintenance Centre, 10th Floor,
Doordarshan Parisar, Worli, Mumbai - 400030.
5. Shri Rama Kant Bohare, the then Assistant Engineer, Doordarshan
Maintenance Centre, Raipur & now Assistant Director
(Engineering), Doordarshan Kendra, Indore (M.P) - 452001.
-Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Devendra Singh Baghel
ANAND Page 1 of 14
2025.04.04
PRAKASH
10:18:06+05'30'
DUBEY
2
ORDER
Delivered by Smt. Mallika Arya, Administrative Member:-
The present original application has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the grading awarded by the reporting officer i. e. Assistant Engineer Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Raipur, for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 as well as by the remarks of the Reviewing Officer. The applicant contended that due to prejudice and malafide intention, since the reporting officer spoiled his APAR therefore, he preferred representations before the various authorities to expunge the adverse entry in the APAR 2010-11 and 2011-12 and vide Memorandum dated 05.12.2013 (Annexure A-3), Dy. Director (E), Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Raipur intimated the applicant that the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer have not accepted his request.
Thereafter, the applicant preferred representation dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure A-4) for expunging the entry made by the Reporting Officer as well as by the Reviewing Officer. But vide order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure A-5), he was again intimated that no change has been considered by the Chief Engineer (WZ), Mumbai. Being aggrieved by non-consideration of his request, the applicant made a representation dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure A-8) ANAND Page 2 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 3 before respondent no.1 which was forwarded to the respondent no. 3 as per letter dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure A-9). Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 16.10.2018 called for the relevant records from respondent no. 4 but he did not submit the record. The applicant then sent reminder on 17.09.2019 to the Respondent no.3 for redreesal of his grievance but to no avail.
Hence, the applicant has filed the present original application for quashing the order dated 05.12.2013 (Annexure A-3) and order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure A-5) and for a direction to the respondents to upgrade the numerical grading to the minimum bench mark of 'very good'.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Reporting Officer being heavily biased and prejudiced due the complaints made by him against the Reporting Officer and therefore, he has given numerical grade of '2' in the APAR for the year 2010-11 and 2.25 for the year 2011-12. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that as per the instructions contained in G.I., D.P. & A.R., O.M. No. 21011/1/77-Estt. dated 30.01.1978, the APAR should be written within one month of the expiry of the reporting period & after writing, it is to be disclosed ANAND Page 3 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 4 to the officer reported upon but in the instant matter, the APAR for the year 2010-11 (Annexure A-1) was written by the Reporting Officer on 15.05.2011 but it was signed by the Reviewing Officer on 12.12.2012 i.e. after a lapse of 20 months and was disclosed in 2013 which indicates the biasness of the officers. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.05.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7631/2002- Dev Dutt Vs. UOI & Ors and the judgment dated 23.04.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5892/2006 - Sukhdev Singh Vs. UOI & Ors and submitted that the action of the Reviewing Officer in not signing the APAR in prescribed time and in not communicating the entry in ACR in prescribed time is in violation of rules and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the same Reporting Officer has made anassessment of numerical grading as '5.25' for the year 2012-13 which was upgraded to '6' by the Reviewing Officer which denotes the bias and prejudice on part of the Reporting Officer. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that no speaking order has been passed by the respondents on his representations but they have merely intimated vide memo dated 15.12.2013 ANAND Page 4 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 5 (Annexure A-3) that the representation was not considered by the Competent Authority. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the OA may be allowed and the applicant may be given relief.
3. The respondents have contested the OA and filed their reply stating that the reporting officer i.e. Assistant Engineer DMC Raipur (Res. No. 05) submitted APAR for the year 2010-11 & 2011-12 according to the conduct, efficiency, working style, moral and behaviour of the applicant with the authorities. After communication of the adverse remark/grading given by the reporting officer , the applicant submitted a representation to the Additional Director General, Engineering, Doorsharshan Worli, Mumbai, who also did not modify the remarks given by the reporting officer. Further, in response to his representation dated 11.12.2013 the applicant was informed vide letter dated 15.01.2015 the remarks of the Reporting Officer have not been modified or altered.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegation of malafide or bias should be proved by supporting ANAND Page 5 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 6 documents and complainant should come with clean hands. The reporting officer while taking into account the working style, efficiency in work, punctuality in his duties, conduct and behaviour with the officers or subordinate employees, has submitted his report which was duly approved by the competent authority on basis of documents on record and the same has been communicated to the applicant. Thus, there is no biasness or any malafide intention against the applicant and prayed that action of the respondents does not call for any interference.
5. We have heard Shri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the pleadings and considered the rival contentions.
6. To our mind, the issues that formally need to be decided in this OA are the following:-
(1) Whether there has been delay in recording of the APAR and if so, whether the same would vitiate the APAR itself?
(2) What reliefs, if any, could be granted to the applicant?ANAND Page 6 of 14
2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 7
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has emphasized that the bias of the Reporting Officer gets established on the ground that the APAR for the year 2010-11 (Annexure A-1) was kept pending with him for a long time and was reviewed after 20 months and has communicated in the year 2013. Learned counsel for the applicant has also emphasized that the representations made by the applicant have not been duly considered and vide order dated 05.12.2013 (Annexure A-3) and order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure A-5) only intimation has been given that no change in the APARs for the year 2010-11 & 2011-12 was considered necessary and no reasons has been assigned.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed before us the O.M No. 21011/I/2005-Estt.(A) (Part III) dated 02.04.2012. Relevant portion of para 48 of the aforesaid O.M is reproduced below : -
"48. Instructions for timely completion of Annual Confidential Reports -
......A time schedule was prescribed for various stages in the matter of writing of Confidential Reports in this Department's O.M No. 35014/4/83-Estt.(A) dated 23.09.1985. The writing of ACR is a public trust and responsibility. All Ministries / Departments are again requested to ensure that the time schedule for preparation of Confidential Reports and other instructions ANAND Page 7 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 8 as laid down in this Department's O.M dated 23.09.1985 are followed to the extent that ACRs are completed in time.
.............in case the ACR is no initiated by the Reporting Officer for any reason beyond 30th June of the year in which the financial year ended, he shall forfeit his right to enter any remarks in the ACR of the officer............ Similarly, the Reviewing Officer shall also forfeit his right to enter any remarks in the ACR beyond 31st August of the year in which the financial year ended......"
9. Further, Annexure-III of the aforesaid O.M provides a time schedule for preparation / completion of APARs according to which the submission of report by the Reporting Officer should be completed by 30th June and the Reviewing Officer should complete the report and send the same to accepting authority by 31st July of the succeeding financial year of report. In the present case, it is evident that the APAR for the year 2010-11 (Annexure A-1) was written by the Reporting Officer on 15.05.2011 but it was signed on 12.12.2012 i.e. after 20 months and disclosed in 2013 and the reasons assigned by the respondents in their reply is that delay was caused due to official procedure. This contention of the respondents is not acceptable.
ANAND Page 8 of 14
2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 9
10. It is noted that in para 8 of the judgment in the case of Sukhdev Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: -
"8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period."
11. From the above, it is clear that non-communication of the said entry, in our opinion, was therefore unfair on the part of the respondents and is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is ANAND Page 9 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 10 a settled position that all entries in the A.C.R of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its up-gradation. In the present original application, admittedly, the adverse remark in the APAR for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were disclosed to the applicant by the respondents in the year 2013. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid cited O.M and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the action of the respondents is not justified. Moreover, it is noted that although the aforesaid DOPT OM dated 02.04.2012 details the manner of dealing with delay in writing the APARs but there is nothing on record to show by the applicant that right of the Reporting Officer /Reviewing Officer was closed by the respondents' department.
12. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the APAR forms had been made available to the applicant and he submitted his statistical supplement on 25.04.2011 to which the Reporting Officer was duty bound to make entry by 30.06.2011 and to submit the same to the reviewing officer on 01.07.2011 as per DOPT OM. Though the reporting officer has recorded his remarks on 15.05.2011, the reviewing officer was required to record his ANAND Page 10 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 11 remarks by the end of August, 2011 whereas he has, in the instant case, recorded his remarks on 12.12.2012. This only implies that the APAR of the applicant has been handled in a negligent and careless manner. In any case, the point stands well proved that the Reviewing Officer had recorded his remarks in the APAR well past the deadlines of 31st August as mandated in the aforesaid OM, therefore, this action of the respondents is not tenable.
13. So far as the second issue regarding claim of the applicant for up-gradation of the numerical grading to the minimum bench mark of 'very good' is concerned, we feel that it is a matter of detail relating to the service where certain facts have been mentioned by the applicant and denied by the competent authority. Since they constitute a part of the APAR, it is not for us to sit in judgment over the same, as this Tribunal cannot take the place of superior competent authority and record the findings. In V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr. (OA No. 4606/2011) decided on 03.01.2012, this Tribunal has held as under:-
"5. In view of the clear reasons assigned in this order, we do not find the contention regarding the rejection of representation having been made without giving reasons. The other pleas taken are not found valid too. As per the ANAND Page 11 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 12 settled law, recording of ACRs is within the legitimate domain of the competent administrative authorities; there is very limited scope for judicial intervention in such cases. Whereas, previously according to the prevailing DOP&T instructions, only adverse remarks were to be communicated; as a sequel to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courts in the matter of Dev Dutt, all remarks as affect an employee adversely in grant of service benefits are required to be communicated. This is on the principles of natural justice so that the affected official does get an opportunity to represent his case before the authorities. However, once such remarks are communicated and the representation is considered by competent authorities, a further probe into the matter is not ordinarily called forth. In the present case, as there are clear reasons spelt out for the view taken by the respondents, no case for judicial interference is made out. The other pleas taken by the applicant: whether alleged bias; nature of preceding ACRs or non-communication of any Memo or Advisory Note, cannot help the matter. Since the foundational claim itself is not found to be tenable, the consideration of the consequential prayers made in the OA would be rendered unnecessary."
14. Insofar as the remarks recorded in the ACR which shocked the conscience of the applicant is concerned, it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere in recording of ACRs, particularly when the court does not have the benefit of knowing ANAND Page 12 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 13 the conduct and the manner in which officer concerned has performed his duties. In the case of Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chhabra vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 441, the Apex Court in para 13 has held as under:-
"....According to us, neither the High Court nor this Court can moderate the appraisal and the grading of the appellant for a particular year. While exercising the power of judicial review, a court shall not venture to assess and appraise the merit or the grading of an officer.....
Therefore, we do not find it expedient or advisable to tread over this forbidden territory, and refrain from making any assessment on the remarks made in the APAR of the applicant, thereby leaving this issue open as the same is not within our competence nor do we have essential details on the basis of which such decision could be taken.
15. Further, it is apparent from the pleadings that though all the points raised by the applicant in his representation have not been dealt with, the application of mind is not missing altogether and the competent authority has recorded the reasons for not accepting the ANAND Page 13 of 14 2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY 14 representation of the applicant. In this regard, it is to be stated that a reasoned order may not always imply that each and every point raised by the applicant has to be dealt with. After all there is a distinction between the administrative quasi judicial order and the legal order. In legal order, the law points are considered and on the basis of the consideration, decision is recorded in detail citing legal authorities. This is not to be expected from the administrative authorities who do not have a trained legal mind. It is a different matter that whether we agree with the conclusion arrived at or not by the competent authority, there is no gainsaying that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are unreasoned or without application of mind.
16. For the forgoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present OA and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Original Application No. 1159/2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Administrative Member Judicial Member Anand...
ANAND Page 14 of 14
2025.04.04 PRAKASH 10:18:06+05'30' DUBEY