Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Chander Prakash Sharma vs Government Nct Of Delhi on 15 October, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No. 762 /2008
New Delhi this the 15th day of October, 2008
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
Honble Mr. N. D. Dayal, Member (A)
HC Chander Prakash Sharma
( 325/C, PIS no. 28750031)
S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma,
R/o D-1, Mehram Nagar, Police Colony,
Near Palam Airport, Delhi.
Applicant
( By Advocate Shri Saurabh Ahuja )
VERSUS
1. Government NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Sachivalaya,
ITO, New Delhi.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. Joint Commissioner of Police,
Establishment/Headquarters, Delhi
Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Establishment/Headquarters, Delhi
Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Harvir Singh )
O R D E R
(Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) :
Having been appointed in the year 1975 as Constable, the applicant secured promotion as Head Constable on 6.1.1991. As per Promotion and Confirmation Rules, 1980, he could have aspired for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector, but when list of eligible candidates came on 31.12.2007, he found himself declared as unfit, with an endorsement as following:
After overall assessment of the service record and ACRs of the preceding 5 years in respect of following HCs (Exe.), the Departmental Promotion Committee found them unfit for admission of their names to promotion list D-1 (Exe.) due to their indifferent service record.
The applicant had later on obtained further information on the issue since vide Annexure A-2 had been informed that the DPC held on 28.12.2007 considered service record as well as ACRs for the preceding 5 years i.e. from 2001-02 to 2005-06 of all the HCs (Exe.) but the applicants ACR for the year 2001-02 had been categorized as C adverse. Therefore, he was graded by the DPC as unfit.
2. By Annexure A-3 similar advice was given to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. These proceedings are under challenge. The question arising for consideration is as to whether the applicant could be considered as ineligible for the reason that there has an adverse entry in respect of service record for the year 2001-02, and in respect of selection held during, December 2007 it would have been relevant. In other words, the preceding 5 years, in respect of selection held in 28.12.2007, whether would have included the year 2001-2002. The applicant has not disputed about the position that as a Head Constable he had adverse entry in the year 2001-02. The counter reply shows as following:
CR of the applicant for the period from 20.6.2001 to 31.3.2002 was adverse.
3. It is seen that promotion panel was being prepared for the year 2007-08. Learned counsel for respondents in defence relied on Annexure R-1, which is an OM issued by the Department of Personnel and Training No. 22011/9/98-Estt.(D) dated 16.6.2000, paragraph 2 of which reads as following:
In regard to operation of the Model Calender for DPCs, a doubt has been raised by certain quarters as to the question of the relevant year up to which ACRs are required to be considered by the DPCs. In this connection, it is once again clarified that only such ACRs should be considered which became available during the year immediately preceding the vacancy/panel years even if DPCs are held later than the schedule prescribed in the Model Calender. In other words, for the vacancy/panel year 2000-2001, ACRs up to the year 1998-99 are required to be considered irrespective of the date of convening DPC. Mr. Harvir Singh points out that if sustenance is drawn from the above, adverse entry in respect of applicant though was in the period 26.2.2001 to 31.3.2002, it would have been operative so as to rob the applicant the benefit of promotion. Of course, before the selection date he had entry of three good and above and no entry as below average. But that did not matter.
4. Mr. Saurabh Ahuja, learned counsel for applicant submits that Annexure R-1, appears to be ambiguous and cannot be considered as an acceptable principle. This is especially since Circular dated 7.2.2005 (Annexure A-7) does prescribe the guidelines, and it is specific that CRs for 5 preceding years are to be taken notice of. When the selection is held on 28.12.2007, the preceding years can be 2006-2007, 2005-2006, 2004-2005, 2003-2004 and 2002-2003. To travel beyond this period, and to rely on entry for the year 2001-2002 would be irregular and illegal.
5. We find that after 16 years of service, the applicant had got first promotion in the year 1991 and to deny him psromotion again after 16 years, on the basis of an entry for the year 2001-2002 would not have been proper or postulated. There should not have been arbitrariness in the approach. Mr. Harvir Singh submits that only if selection was held after 3 days i.e. 1.1.2008, he would have become entitled to be considered as fit after the year ended. First of all we find that 5 years period starts from 2002-03 alone and therefore, adverse entry for the year 2001-2002 was not relevant. There is also no suggestion as per the parameter prescribed by Annexure A-7, applicant had been found ineligible due to punishments awarded on charges of moral turpitude. In the circumstances we find that DPC had erred in rejecting the claim of the applicant by applying a wrong yardstick.
6. Consequently we set aside the Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3. We further direct that name of the applicant should be properly interpolated in Annexure A-1 reflecting his correct seniority. He will also be entitled to be deputed for training for ultimate appointment as ASI. Consequential steps are to be taken by the respondents within one month from today. There shall be no order as to costs ( N. D. Dayal ) ( M. Ramachandran ) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) sk