Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Indrani Sarkar vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI. O.A. No. 2709/2009 New Delhi this the 12th day of April, 2010 HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) Smt. Indrani Sarkar Senior Architect, Director (Architecture) HQ Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone, Delhi CAntt.-110010. ..Applicant By Advocate: Shri O.P. Kalshian Versus Union of India Through 1. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110 011. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 3. Engineer-in-Chief, E-in-Cs Branch, Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110 010. 4. Director General (Pers.) MES E-in-Cs Branch, Integrated Headquartes of MoD (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110 010. 5. Secretary, UPSC, Shahajahan Road, DHQ P.O., New Delhi-110 011. 6. Smt. Mala Mohan, Chief Architect, E-in-Cs Branch, Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110 010. Respondents By Advocate: Ms. Vandana for Shri A.K. Bhardwaj for respondent No.1 to 4. Ms. Alka Sharma for respondent No.5. O R D E R (ORAL)
By Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) The applicant is aggrieved that he has been found unfit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which met on 26.07.2008 for considering promotion of Senior Architect to the post of Chief Architect. The ACRs for the periods from 2002-03 to 2006-07 were considered by the DPC. It is not undisputed that the ACR for the period from 2003-04 and 2004-05 had Good gradings, which is below the prescribed benchmark of Very Good. It is also not disputed that Reporting and Reviewing Officer for both the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 have since retired from service.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgments of this Tribunal in Krishan Mohan Dixit Vs. Union of India and Others (OA No.586/2009 decided on 21.08.2009), O.P. Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No.1178/2009 decided on 14.10.2009) and Narender Gupta Vs/ M/o Defence (O.A. 292/2010 decided on 09.04.2010). The Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs has held as (i) if the reporting and reviewing officers, who recorded the ACRs which contained below benchmark gradings, have retired, those ACRs should be ignored and (ii) if the ACRs which are below benchmark and, therefore, adverse by virtue of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar V/s Union of India & Ors. (SLP No. 26556/2004 decided on 22.10.2008), are three years prior to the date of DPC, should also be ignored by virtue of the Department of Personnel & Trainings O.M. dated 11.05.1990, which reads as under:
The procedure for dealing with the adverse entries in the CRs by the DPC, as provided for in the DOP&T OM No.22011/3/88-Estt.(D) dated 11.5.1990 is as under:-
(i) Where the DPC find that the adverse remarks in the CR of an officer have not been communicated to him but the adverse remarks are of sufficient gravity to influence their assessment of the officer concerned, then the Committee shall defer consideration of the case of the officer, provided these remarks have been recorded in any of the CRs pertaining to three immediately preceding years prior to the year in which the DPC is held and direct the Cadre Controlling authority concerned to communicate the adverse remarks to the officer concerned so that he may have an opportunity to make a representation against the same. Where the un-communicated adverse remarks pertain to a period earlier than the above or where the remarks are not considered of sufficient gravity to influence the assessment of the officer concerned, the DPC may proceed with consideration of the case but may ignore the remarks while making the assessment (emphasis supplied).
3. In view of the aforesaid, for parity of reasons, O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.07.2009 at Annexure A-III is quashed. The respondents are directed to hold review DPC by considering the ACRs of the applicant for the period 2001-02 and 2002-03. The aforesaid exercise will be completed within a period of three months from today.
4. We further direct that if the applicant is considered fit for promotion, he will be eligible for consequential benefits including promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted.
5. With the aforesaid direction, this O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) (L.K. JOSHI) MEMBER (J) VICE CHAIRMAN (A) /jyoti/