Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Dr N Paneer Selvam vs M/O Environment And Forests on 30 November, 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CRENNAI BENCH O&8 Na. 1999 af 20727 Presest 5 Hon ble Mr. Sweangy Kumar Wishes, Menber ah Hen'hic Nr. T. Jacob, Member {Ads ire) Gr, BN. Pens Selvara. Vetoes ¥ Mitcer (Reta, Sfo M Sataraiun, 220 A, Weal Masi Street, Macuirad, Tami Nada = 825 OGk:
noo App usant VERSUS i, Union of fedle represented by The Searetary, Ministry of Sevircnment. and Forest, Inding Panvwraran Bhawan, New Ceti = 110003.
S. The Inspecter of General Forests, Ministry af Environsnent and Forest, CGO Complex, Loch! Road, New Delhi ~ LPOGGS, S. The Director, National Zoological Park, Sear Thetig Reeonigents:4
For the applicant: Mc. B. Ulaganathan, Course! For the regpondenta: Mr. Su, Srinivasan, Course} Heard & reserved aay: SOF 200) Order on: Bayyy (20 2 | 3 Oo RP PR Por Ms. Swarup Aumer Mishra, Member The applicant, whe is a netired Vetermary Offcer ance SO.06.2015, has fled die OA. under Section 29 oof She Administrative Tribunals Act, 1885 preying ister alla te call for the recerd on the fle of the respondent No.l in conmertion sith 'the order bearing PLNo. 4/3/8012 dared pa dune S014, quash the same and direst the respondenty to expunge the we peniad 2O0Q6-07, SQO7-08, SOQOS-08 and ZNO. 10 armel accordingly direct the Regparidents to grant him financial upgradation under ACP/MACE.
2. Resporsients fled their counter objecting the wey mainiainaiiiiy of duis QO.A. on the ground of limitation as also on meri and has prayed for dismisanl of this O.A. being develd of reerke,
3. We have heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the piaterinis on record.
&. The grounds taken by the appleant for the relief which has been miterated In course of the hearing by the Lod. Counsel for the applicant ie sumumarined as under:
%} The ACRs were recorded by the Reportieg: Officer which were modilied by the Reviewing Authoriqr but the respondents deliberately destroyed the repent of the Reviewing Authority and once again sent the ACRs to the Reviewing Authority after his ceGrement which is bad in baw, iu) As per the instruction of the Oowarument san tielned x OM. dated 20.08.1979, the Head af the fir, "haf wee sey Bod Ss Department/ Office should have been taken to task for the missing ACR. Daepite repeated OMe dated TR SOB9, 14.08. 2009, steps was not Gsken is cemplets he recording of the ACRs by the date atipuinted therein. The Reporting OMcer did not Now the provision of para B of OM. dated 20.08 Te7s by which it has been provided that all adverse entves in the ACRs should be cemmunioated by the Reviewing Oliver after that hae heen seen by the counter signing authority bat the adverse entries were never conmiunicaied to the apgticans, fi) According to the instruction comained i pare 2 of the DoPST O.M. dated 16,09.2009, the Repo rting Officer has fonieited his Tight to make the entry in she ACE of the applicant after the prescribed period sas over wheres in the Instant case the ACRs for Uhe setod in question Gas supplied to the applicant by respondent No.8 alter retirement of the Reviewing Authority iy response fo Eis representation dated 14.06.0019.
which is bad in law.
-
uel AS apainst the adverse entries male in the ACR» applicant submited representation on OF.1 1.2012 seeking exspumotion af the averse remarks meconied in Atle iolowed by reminder dated G8.08,.9015, Ix termes adverse emrics aught to have been decked with aix applicant was relented on 16.06.2014, which is bad ix law.
Sin support of his subsissian, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied on thes following decisions:
8) Hon'ble Delhi Nivh Court in B Jumrari ve Netional Budding Construction Corporation Lid. & Ors.
b} Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdeo ws The Commissioner Asnravall Division.
c} Han'hie Supreme Gort in Siate of OP ve Yamuna Shanker Misra.
a} Hobie CAT Principal Bench, New Dethi in OA No. 1238/2014 Shri Gunian Prasad ve Govt. of India & others. e} Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt ys DDI & others. fi Hon'ble Apes Court is Abbilt Ghos Dastidar ve UTS are. 3 : s «8
a) Hon'ble Dethi Nigh Court in Union of India vera R 8 Rartd & & On the other heared, the resparndents counsel while denving the contentions advanced by the applicant and by reiterating the fo stant and is Hable to be diemissed both on the eran ot 3:
Snilation as aise on pert, ¢. We have considered the rivad eubmissions of the parties and perused the materials on record, We hee also gone through the eitetons relied an by the Ld. Counsel Gr the apmlicann 2 appears from the record that the applicant was initially anpointed to the poat of Veterinary Cificer on deputation im National aerttly he was absorbed in NZS. § is the stand of the apalicumt thar he had submitted his ACRs for tie period, in questian, after recordin his self appraisal well on time but nothing was communicated 6 hin. This was denied by the respondents by atating that the applicant did sot suber his self appraisal for the above period despite repeated remirulers. Therefore, as per the renuairemens, the ACR of the applicant was feowarded fo the Reporting Officer and the recording of the Reporting Officer was duly "
communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 27400.2012 for Ais cantimets. The arplicant auberited resresentation thereon. on TS.0G S015 meesting to expunge the adverse remarks. The competent authority cormsidered the representation but did not God any ground to expunge the adverse entey made uy hie ACKs. The eppeal preferred by the apploant was duly considered but the sQme Was relected and communicated in the applicant vide isttes deded 18.08.2014 (8/1) Allegine non consideration of his 4 xy ae ee Ye i ye ee a ba te ee 3
2. ce age re y oe a2 ot wy Pe ae ye & 4 ah ¥ so g oe AS < his ACs witch was communicated on 27.06.2012, the applicant had Red OA. Ne. Yee /20i4 belure this Bench When respondents Drought to the mouce of the Bench that the representation of the applicant has already heen relected and mamuninicated to Rim on 18.06.2014, the appicard sought permission to withdraw the G.A. and fle a freak GA, chaWienging the rejection order dated 16.08.2014 alone with application for condonation of delay, The sed O.A. was disposed of accordingly vide arder dated SG.11.2018. Therester, the present O.A. has been Ged by the applicant seeking the aforesaid reliel, & The maim contention af the applicant is that as per the DORSY O.M. and nw relied on by bimm the authorities o wpe ought te have communicated the adverse emtries to the arplicant on time, which has only been recorded and commamioated by letter dated 27.08.2015 and he submitted Ne representation i 2015. According to the respondent, the applicant did not submis his ACRe after recording his self appraised for which the ACRs for the perbal ae per Che rules wens placed befare the Renn Officer and the recording of the Beperting Officer was duly cominunkedted to him. No reason hes been nesigned ag fo ay the applicant did mot subnut the self appraisal report and if at all H was submitted when and to whom he had submitted is nov available on recanl. The ACKs are of die petiod 2OOS-OF , OF 408, O8-09 and O9-10. According ny the apploant, he submitted representation agninel Che communicated mode to hin vide be fOr dated 27.06.2012 aber more than one year, Le. on 18.06.2013. The representation was duly relected and communicated wee letter dated 18.06.2014 but he fled the GLA. 777 (2038 alleging mo action on his representation and when it was conftonted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that his representation has already been considered and rejected wide order dated I1S.O8. 2018, he had withdrawn the OLA.
wor SS @ dt may be recerded that der ACRs are written by the wnmediate @uthority of the employes concermel Gesed an his ammual performance, which are reciewed by the nest authorify. The power of judicial review in such muatters ary very Emited and the Court can neberfere in such matters, i there has been any infraction of unffingement of She oracedures followed by the authoniy goncermed. From die record, we doe nt see any impropriety or Ulegall aty in following the preseribed procedure, especially, when the applicant ised ts submit nis ACHe un time, x berauise fisul he eubmitted therm on Gime, there should not Save been any delay in recording his ACK by the Reporting 'Reviewing Authority and if at all thers should have been any adverse yemarke the same would have been communicated to the applicant in time. Therefore, the applicant wag not serious of his eareer prospects and rather he was found to be indolent imatead af viglant is recording his ACSs. The decisions relisd on by the La. Course! for die applicant are of mo help in the pecubar facts and circumstances of this case. in view of the above, we de not find any Mepality or bapropriefy in the action of the respondents &O aS bo interfere in the matter at this belated state.
VL AARAP ISSN agin eee a een * vi hale QtSaNnaagnsnee oe :
ef & & . See OA beinw devold of mer bs ciroumetances without ony order te oeet, $ g 4 3 3 3 iN y 3 S$ < Sy 3 3% < < 2 < = < 2 = > Me, Lininnannnindanadniiniiadanidhanaapanapncierestacee:
ver : « u ¢ US © ' ¢ t :
:
& ¢ § ¢ t ¢ t ¢ y 8 q t i s +