Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dr Samir Kumar Nanda vs National Institute Of Homoeopathy on 21 August, 2025
1 O.A. 940 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/940/2022 Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025
Date of Order: 21.08.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Dr. Samir Kumar Nanda, son of Late Jagannath
Nanda, aged about 61 years, worked for gain as
Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic
Medicine and Toxicology, National Institute of
Homeopathy, Salt Lake, (since retired) and
residing at K-2, Cluster-13, Purbachal, Sector- III,
Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 097 (M) 9433185409 Email
id. [email protected]
....... Applicant.
-versus-
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Ayush having office at
Ayush Bhawan, B-Block, G.P.O. Complex, INA, New
Delhi-110023.
2. The Governing Body, NIH, through its President
having office at Ayush Bhawan, B-Block, G.P.O.
Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023.
3. The President of the Governing Body, National
Institute of Homoeopathy, having office at Ayush
Bhawan, B-Block, G.P.O. complex, INA, New Delhi-
110023.
4. The National Institute of Homoeopathy through
the Director, NIH, having office at Block GE,
Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. 940 of 2022
5. Director, NIH, having office at Block-GE, Sector-
III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 106.
...... Respondents.
For the Applicants : Mr. A.K. Banerjee, Ms. I. Banerjee; Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Paul, Counsel
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s) highlighting the facts of the case:
"a. To direct the respondent act and proceed in accordance with law; and b. To direct the respondents to grant benefit of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level benefit under Dynamic financial up-gradation Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme to your Applicant in the light of the proposition settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
2. The applicant joined as an Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine in National Institute of Homoeopathy. He was promoted to the post of Professor of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology with effect from 1st June, 2007. He was selected for the post of Director on regular basis and he joined the post on 18th June, 2012. On 5th September, 2014, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH, which provided that AYUSH doctors with 7 years of regular service in grade pay of Rs. 8700/- in pay Band-IV including service rendered in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 14300 - 18300/- or 20 years of regular service shall be eligible for up-gradation to secure Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level under DACP scheme. The applicant was in Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 O.A. 940 of 2022 the revised scale of pay of Rs. 37400 - 67,000/- + Rs. 8,700/- grade pay + NPA from 2007 and in terms of the office memorandum dated 5th September, 2014, the applicant became eligible for grant of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme with effect from 1st June, 2014 upon completion of 7 years of service. The respondent authorities denied the benefit of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme to the applicant. Hence this instant application.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the then Director in Charge (Dr. Abhijit Chattopadhyay, the Director-in-charge as on 2018) was also an aspirant for the post of Director in 2012. Since he could not secure the post of Director, he became inimical to the applicant, and started instigating the students along with his associates. He instigated the students and other staff against the applicant which culminated in a criminal case being filed against the applicant in Bidhannagar Police Station. Incidentally, Dr. Abhijit Chattopadhyay was the Director-in-charge as on 2018, the time when grant of DACP was being considered, he was also discharging the duties of Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the institute as additional duties.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that on 17th June, 2017 upon completion of the tenure of the post of Director, the applicant handed over the charge of Director to Dr. Abhijit Chattopadhyay, who became the then Director of NIH. Subsequently, an advertisement for filling up the post of Director on regular basis came up in which the applicant made an application for being considered for the post of Director for the second time. It is pertinent to mention here that under the Recruitment Rules there was no age limit for the post of Director. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4 O.A. 940 of 2022 Subsequently, a conspiracy was hatched to keep the applicant out of the fray and an age limit was inserted in administrative capacity as 56 years, then 55 years. At this juncture, the applicant challenging the act and move of the authority, moved a writ application being W. P. No. 21211 (W) of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court. In the said proceeding, the Hon'ble Court vide its interim order was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicant for interview for the post of director if he was otherwise entitled to. The applicant duly appeared at the interview but the result of the said interview was not published and the post of director was being occupied on ad-hoc basis in total violation of the norms and procedures of the Ministry as well as the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT). In spite of the fact that Appointment of Cabinet Committee objected to continuance of the present Director in-Charge as director, the present Director-in-charge after an artificial break for 5 months, has been once again appointed on an ad-hoc basis. On 23rd November, 2017 an office order was issued by the Director-in-Charge of the National Institute of Homeopathy whereby and whereunder all concerned were intimated for filing their written representation against their grading mentioned in APAR/ACR. Applicant made a representation on 6th December 2017.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the Annual Confidential Reports were never communicated to him and representation was sought for after a period of 10 years. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that on 28th March, 2018 an office note was generated by the then Director-in-Charge to the applicant in which it was, inter alia, said that the applicant secured remark "good" for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09, which is below the Bench Mark and ACRs for the periods 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 have not been written.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
5 O.A. 940 of 2022 Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that by an office order dated 13th August, 2018 issued under the signature of Joint Director (Administration), two professors have been awarded Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level under the benefit of financial up-gradation under DACP scheme to the exclusion of the applicant.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that despite the preparation of APARS by the applicant himself during his tenure as Director, the same was deliberately and as a part of a conspiracy, not sent to the Ministry by the establishment section for which the applicant cannot be said to be at fault. When ACRs for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 were never communicated to the applicant and any remark made therein cannot be taken into account for the purpose of consideration of grant of financial benefit to the applicant in view of the settled proposition enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2008) 8 SCC page 725 and (2013) 9 SCC page 566.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the High-Power Committee constituted by the Ministry comprised of Dy. Director General (DDG) and of two Ex directors who were not satisfied with the applicant since he did not fulfil their unjust desire and behind the back of the applicant they submitted a report against the applicant in total violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action and such alleged High-Power Committee has no authority/jurisdiction to make any recommendation. ACRs/APARs for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 were never communicated to the applicant and as such, any remark made therein cannot be taken into account for the purpose of consideration of grant of financial benefit to the applicant in view of the settled proposition enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The post of Joint Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
6 O.A. 940 of 2022 Director as well as the post of Dy. Director General in the Ministry are extra Constitutional Post, which is not there, but they play pivotal role in the matter of the applicant in all respect viz. to keep the applicant out of fray for the post of Director for second time as well as grant of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level benefit under the financial up-gradation through DACP scheme.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the subject matter of denial of the DACP to the applicant relates to the year 2014, for which he submitted representation on 02-04-2018 and he was superannuated on 30-06- 2020, hence the instant application is time barred and suffers from limitation. The applicant had moved before the Hon'ble High Court in the year 2018, but he had to withdraw his petition from the Hon'ble High Court on grounds of jurisdiction. But the petitioner again restored it by filing CAN - 1 & 2 for restoration. Now this matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and at the same time, the same matter is also pending before this Tribunal which is not permitted in law.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings were placed in sealed cover. When the sealed cover envelop of Dr. Samir Kumar Nanda, which was kept pending till the conclusion of a criminal case filed against him, was opened, it was found that he was found unfit for promotion by the DPC. The said criminal Case was filed against Dr. Nanda before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, ref. no. 659 of 2016 in the matter of The State -vs- Dr. Samir Kumar Nanda, due to his misconduct against employee/Doctor of NIH.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant is used to making irrelevant, false and bogus allegations against the administration. Submissions of the applicant about vindictiveness against him are denied. The Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. 940 of 2022 applicant may have had some personal rift. However, the criminal cases are not connected to the subject of this O.A and the applicant is intentionally trying to mislead the Tribunal by playing the victim card based on his personal rift with other colleagues in the institute.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the DPC noted that the bench mark for financial up-gradation to SAG level is "very good" in terms of DACP Scheme. But the applicant was graded as 'Good' only, which is below bench mark prescribed for promotion/up-gradation to the said post. Allegation by the applicant regarding ACRS not being forwarded and/or given low bench mark as "good" and not "very good" and not written since the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 etc are confusing as he was himself the regular Director of NIH. The applicant frequently neglected his work and he is now blaming the respondents.
5. Applicant has filed his rejoinder in which he has made the following points:
i) In the matter of GR 659/16, State vs. Samir Kumar Nanda, the Hon'ble Court, after a fair trial, passed an order on 29th September 2020, declaring that the applicant was not found guilty of the accusations under sections 341, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and acquitted him under section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ii) The applicant became eligible for the Senior Administrative Grade (S.A.G.) scale with effect from 1st June 2014, upon the completion of seven years of service in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400 - Rs. 67,000. At the time he became eligible, the applicant had no cases pending against him, nor were any departmental proceedings initiated.Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. 940 of 2022
iii) WP 20487 (w) of 2018 was dismissed for default, and thereafter 2 applications being CAN/1/2021 and CAN/2/2021 were filed for restoration, so that the matter could be withdrawn with leave to file before this Tribunal. These two applications have since been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court.
6. Heard.
7. The applicant became eligible for financial upgradation under DACP scheme in 2014 after having spent 7 years in the Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/-. For grant of DACP benefit to SAG, an employee in Grade Pay Rs. 8,700/- has to have grading of at least "Very Good" in the APARs of the last 5 years. In the case of the applicant, APARs of 2007-08 and 2008-09 only were considered as only these APARs were completed by the Reporting and the Reviewing Officers. The applicant claims that the APARs for 2009-10 to 2013-14 were submitted by him after filling up the self-appraisal part but were not completed by either the Reporting or the Reviewing Officer. APARs of 2007-08 and 2008-09 had gradings of Good, i.e., below the benchmark required for promotion to SAG. These APARs were communicated to the applicant in 2018. He submitted his representation against the grading. His representation was considered by a High Powered Committee set up for the purpose which after deliberation decided to retain the original grading. Since the APARs of 2007-08 and 2008-09 were below the benchmark, DPC constituted for grant of DACP benefit considered and decided not to grant him DACP. Recommendation of the DPC was however kept in sealed cover as a criminal case was pending against the applicant. After he was exonerated from the criminal charges, sealed cover was opened and it was seen Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. 940 of 2022 that his name was not recommended by the DPC for grant of DACP benefit.
Meanwhile, the applicant retired from service on superannuation in June 2020.
8. Applicant has made the following points:
1) His performance was adversely affected by the actions of his subordinates, peers as well as superiors who were opposed to measures he had initiated to enforce discipline including introduction of biometric attendance.
2) His APARs for 2007-08 and 2008-09 were written by an officer after his retirement. This is against the rules.
3) His APARs for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 were not forwarded by his subordinates to the appropriate authorities for remarks of the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer.
4) He was informed of below benchmark grading in his APAR for 2007-
08 and 2008-09 and was asked to represent against the grading in 2018, i.e., 10 years after the period to which the APAR pertained.
5) His representation against the grading in APAR of 2007-08 and 2008- 09 were considered and rejected by a High Powered Committee. There is no provision under the rules for formation of a High Powered Committee for considering the representation against the original grading in the APAR.
9. Respondents' points are:
1) APAR for 2007-08 and 2008-09 were reported upon by the then Director during the Director's tenure in office.Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
10 O.A. 940 of 2022
2) The applicant was himself the Director of the Institute for five years from 2012 to 2017. It was his responsibility to forward the APAR to the appropriate authority for reporting and review. Applicant cannot take advantage of his own failure by shifting the responsibility to his subordinate staff.
3) The applicant is a quarrelsome person who had such poor relations with his subordinates that a criminal case was filed against him.
4) His representation against the grading in his 2007-08 and 2008-09 APAR were considered by a Committee and was rejected.
5) Based on his APAR gradings, DPC did not find him suitable for promotion to SAG. Therefore, he cannot be granted the pay scale of SAG.
10. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the respondent institution did not have a proper system of writing and maintaining APARs. It is seen that for years together, APARs of the applicant were not written. This resulted in the DPC considering APARs of only two years for which APARs with reporting and reviewing officers' remarks were available. Both these APARs had below benchmark gradings. He was denied DACP benefit on the ground that the gradings in the APAR for the other three years even if they were available would not make the applicant eligible for promotion as the gradings in the APAR of 2007-08 and 2008-09 were enough to render him ineligible for promotion.
Applicant has also challenged the review of his representation by a committee instead of the appropriate authority as laid down under the rules. Instructions regarding preparation of APARs, communication of completed APARs Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
11 O.A. 940 of 2022 to the officer concerned and disposal of representation against APAR entries are contained in DOP&T O.M dated 14.05.2009 reproduced below:
Subject:- Maintenance and preparation of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports-communication of all entries for fairness and transparency in public administration.
The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the Ministries/Departments to the existing provisions in regard to preparation and maintenance of Annual Confidential Reports which inter-alia provide that only adverse remarks should be communicated to the officer reported upon for representation, if any. The Supreme Court has held in their judgement dated 12.5.2008 in the case of Dev Dutt vs Union of India (Civil Appeal No.7631 of 2002) that the object of writing the confidential report and making entries is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve the performance. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission in their 10th Report has also recommended that the performance appraisal system for all services be made more consultative and transparent on the lines of the PAR of the All India Services.
2. Keeping in view the above position, the matter regarding communication of entries in the ACRs in the case of civil services under the Government of India has been further reviewed and the undersigned is directed to convey the following decisions of the Government:-
(i) The existing nomenclature of the Annual Confidential Report will be modified as Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR).
(ii) The full APAR including the overall grade and assessment of integrity shall be communicated to the concerned officer after the Report is complete with the remarks of the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority wherever such system is in vogue.
Where Government servant has only one supervisory level above him as in the case of personal staff attached to officers, such communication shall be made after the reporting officer has completed the performance assessment.
(iii) The Section entrusted with the maintenance of APARs after its receipt shall disclose the same to the officer reported upon.
(iv)The concerned officer shall be given the opportunity to make any representation against the entries and the final grading given in the Report within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries in the APAR. The representation shall be restricted to the specific factual observations contained in the report leading to assessment of the officer in terms of attributes, work output etc. While communicating the entries, it shall be made clear that in case no representation is received within the fifteen days, it shall be deemed that he/she has no representation to make. If the concerned APAR Section does not receive any information from the concerned officer on or before fifteen days from the date of disclosure, the APAR will be treated as final.
(v) The new system of communicating the entries in the APAR shall be made applicable prospectively only with effect from the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
12 O.A. 940 of 2022 reporting period 2008-09 which is to be initiated after 1st April 2009.
(vi)The competent authority for considering adverse remarks under the existing instructions may consider the representation, if necessary, in consultation with the reporting and/or reviewing officer and shall decide the matter objectively based on the material placed before him within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the representation.
(vii) The competent authority after due consideration may reject the representation or may accept and modify the APAR accordingly. The decision of the competent authority and the final grading shall be communicated to the officer reported upon within fifteen days of receipt of the decision of the competent authority by the concerned APAR Section.
3. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring to the notice of all the offices under them for strict implementation of the above instructions."
11. From the material on record, it is evident that the respondent organisations, i.e., the National Institute of Homoeopathy and its controlling Ministry had given a complete go by to the established procedure relating to APARs of its officials. In their respective pleadings, the applicant and the respondents have blamed the other party for this state of affairs particularly with respect to the APARs of the applicant herein. APARs are an important document with a salutary bearing on the career progression of an official. Following the landmark judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union of India & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 6227 of 2008, the Government laid down elaborate modified procedure for communication of APAR gradings to the officer reported upon and disposal of the representation of the official against his APAR gradings.
12. In the instant case, APARs of the applicant were not written by the reporting/reviewing officers for years together. The administration decided to base its decision on grant of DACP benefits to the applicant only on two available APARs of 2007-08 and 2008-09. Even these two APARs were communicated to the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
13 O.A. 940 of 2022 applicant almost ten years after the period to which they pertained. Representation against the below benchmark grading was considered by a so called High Powered Committee. As per rules, representation against APAR grading is to be considered by the competent authority. We fail to appreciate the action of the respondents in constituting a "High Powered Committee" to consider the applicant's representation. Opportunity was accorded to the respondents to apprise the Bench of any rule that provides for constitution of a Committee for consideration of representation against APAR grading. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the respondents on the subject even after the grant of such opportunity. In the DOPT OM dated 14.05.2009 reproduced above, there is no provision for any Committee to consider such representation. Moreover, these APARs were communicated to the applicant ten years later rendering the exercise meaningless. The fact that the applicant himself was the Director of the Institute, i.e., during the period when his APARs were not reported upon or reviewed or his earlier APARs with below benchmark gradings were not communicated to him does not absolve the respondent organisations including the controlling Ministry of the responsibility of handling the APARs as per laid down rules and procedures. In our view, handling of the two APARs for 2007-08 and 2008-09 in ways which were not in conformity with the rules renders even these two APARs as legally unsustainable. Respondents' culpability in the matter is further compounded by the fact that the APARs of the remaining years are not available. In order to balance the equity therefore, in our opinion the recommendation of the DPC qua the applicant which was based on the APARs of 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the final decision with respect to grant of DACP benefits to the applicant is untenable. DPC recommendation dated 04.07.2018 in respect of the applicant and the respondents' decision to deny DACP benefits to the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
14 O.A. 940 of 2022 applicant on the basis of such recommendation are accordingly quashed and set aside.
13. Respondents are directed to constitute a fresh DPC for considering grant of DACP benefits to the applicant without taking into consideration the APARs for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and take a final decision on the issue of grant of DACP benefits to the applicant within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of this order. In the event that the applicant is found eligible for grant of the DACP benefits, all consequential benefits including arrears, if any, shall be paid within a period of 02 months thereafter.
14. O.A is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Member (A) Member (J)
DB
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.21 13:44:09+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0