Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shishir Dutt vs M/O Railways on 18 December, 2020
Item No.20 Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.3782/2018 Today this the 18thday of December, 2020 Through video conferencing Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman Hon'bleMr.Mohd.Jamshed, Member (A) ShriShishirDutt, IRSME Aged 54 years, Group 'A' S/o ShriR.D. Srivastava Presently working as Chief Workshop Engineer Southern Railway, Chennai and Resident of Flat No.142/L, Gangothri Railway Officers' Flats, Sterling Road Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034. ....Applicant (By Advocate:Dr. K.S. Chauhan and Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka) Versus
1. Union of India Through its Chairman, Railway Board And Ex-Officio Secretary Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Railway Board Through its Secretary Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan New Delhi-110001.
3. Railway Board Through its Member Rolling Stock Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan New Delhi-110001.
4. Railway Board Through its Member Staff Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan New Delhi-110001. ...Respondents (By Advocates: Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Mr. M.S. Reen) 2 OA No-3782/2018 Order (Oral) Justice Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy:
The applicant is working as Senior Administrative Grade Officer (SAG) in the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers. It is stated that he has to his credit, the APARs rated as 'Outstanding' or 'Very Good', but only for the year 2015-2016 when he worked as Chief Workshop Engineer (CWE), the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities have rated his performance as Good, which is below bench mark, in the context of promotion. The applicant contends that during his tenure at that place the production was substantially increased and due to the initiative taken by him,there was a phenomenal improvement in the overall working, and despite that he was rated as 'Good' which is below bench mark. He submitted a representation dated 28.02.2017 to the competent authority i.e. Member Rolling Stock (MRS). According to the applicant, his representation was rejected,in a routine manner through order dated 09.10.2017 and when he met and narrated his grievance, the said authority is stated to have asked him to give a further representation containing the various details. The applicant contends that such a representation was made,but it was rejected only on the ground that there is no provision for further representation vis-à-vis the order passed by the competent authority. This OA is filed challenging the gradation given to the applicantfor the APAR 2015-2016 and with a prayer to upgrade the same to the level of 'Outstanding'.
3 OA No-3782/2018
2. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the OA.It is stated that the representation made by the applicant was considered by the competent authority in detail, as is evident from a Note dated 03.09.2017 and gist thereof was communicated to the applicant. It is also stated that there is no provision for further representation once the matter is examined by the competent authority.
3. We heard Dr. K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.M. Arif, learned counsel for the respondents at length, through video conferencing.
4. The grievance of the applicant is only about his APAR for the year 2015-16. It was rated as 'Good' bythree authorities, namely Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting ones. As provided under the relevant rules, he made a representation to the competent authority which, in this case is the MRS, with a request to upgrade the APAR. The communication dated 09.10.2017 reads as under:-
"The Competent Authority has considered the representation of Shri Shishir Dutt, CME (Plg)/ICF, regarding entries in your APAR for year 2015-26 and decided that no change in the attributes, overall grading or suitability/fitness for promotion as DRM/or in the department is warranted."
5. Except that the result of the consideration was communicated,no reason whatever was furnished. It is fairly well settled that the competent authority is under obligation to pass a reasoned order, dealing with various facts urged by the officer in the representation.
4 OA No-3782/2018
6. The respondents have enclosed a copy of the Note dated 29.09.2017 which contains the reasons furnished by the competent authority. The applicant was not aware of that. In the OA the applicant categorically stated that on the receipt of the letter dated 09.10.2017 he met the MRS and the latter, in turn, explained to him in detail. The member is said to have observed that the representation made earlier did not contain any specific grounds and permitted the applicant to make a detailed representation in this regard. It is in that context, that the applicant made further representation dated 06.11.2017. A reply was received by the applicant on 28.11.2017 which simply stated that there is no provision for further representation.
7. The plea as to thediscussion that is said to have taken place between him and the MRS, subsequent to the order dated 19.10.2017, is not at all denied in the counter affidavit. Once the applicant was given assurance by the competent authority that he would look into the various aspects, if stated in the subsequent representation, necessary exercise ought to have been undertaken. It appears that the subsequent representation made by the applicant was not even placed before the competent authority.
8. If one takes into account, the position held by the applicant, a single APAR which is below bench mark would prove to be fatal in several respects. The remedy availed in this behalf cannot be treated as nugatory. Therefore, we allow the OA and quash the order 28.11.2017. We direct that the representation dated 06.11.2017 shall 5 OA No-3782/2018 be placed before the Member Rolling Stock and he, in turn, shall pass a reasoned order thereon within, four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Pending MA, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Mohd. Jamshed) ( Justice L. Narasimha Reddy ) Member (A) Chairman /sunil/vb/sd