Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Dhiraj Jain vs Union Of India Through on 11 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3979/2011 New Delhi, this the 11th day of November, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Shri Dhiraj Jain, R/o C-2/68, West Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110 034. . Applicant (In person) Versus Union of India through : 1. The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. Respondents : ORDER :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) At the admission stage, we heard the applicant who appeared in person.
2. The applicant, who is working as Deputy Chief Materials Manager (DCMM) is aggrieved by the adverse remarks given in his ACR for the year 2004-05. Pursuant to the directions of High Court of Delhi on 09.09.2010 in Writ Petition No.12850 and 13197 of 2009, he submitted his representation against the adverse remarks in his ACR (2004-05) on 05.10.2010 (Annexure-A9 Colly) but the same was rejected by the second respondent in his letter dated 20.12.2010 (Annexure-A1). Assailing the said letter, the applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying to quash and set aside the impugned adverse remarks communicated to him vide letter dated 17.08.2005, to pass orders on the representation dated 5.10.2010 in his favour and to direct the respondents to grant him all consequential benefits.
3. The only ground canvassed by the applicant is that his representation has not been considered by the Railway Board though he addressed his representation dated 05.10.2010 to the Secretary, Railway Board, and the impugned letter has been issued by the General Manager, Northern Railways who is incompetent to do so. No other ground was advanced by him in support of his OA.
4. The facts of the case as furnished in the OA disclosed that applicant represented against the adverse remarks in his ACR for the year ending 2004-2005 in his letter dated 23.09.2005 (Annexure-A3) addressed to General Manager, Northern Railways, the second respondent, who in his letter dated 10.3.2006 (page-36) while rejecting his representation informed him that appeal against his order would lie to the next higher authority viz. Railway Board. The said letter, on challenge before this Tribunal in OA No.1631/2008, was quashed and set aside in the order dated 21.05.2009 in following terms :-
14. Insofar as the adverse remarks communicated to the applicant are concerned, the objectivity lies writ large on the face of it, where though the applicant has been shown to have better result orientation and achievements, but he was adversely commented to have done better with more focused and disciplined approach. The level of knowledge was found to be at desired level but can be more usefully applied for results. The quality of output performance need more disciplined approach towards result achievements. It is pertinent to note that except verbal and oral warnings, as contended, the only material was a counseling by a review officer on 3.4.2006, which not only falls beyond the reported period but also as no adverse remarks have been recorded in the attribute of insubordination and misbehaviour, this cannot be treated as an effort of the reporting officer to give an opportunity to the applicant to improve. The adverse remarks lack objectivity.
15. Another aspect of the matter is that though no reasons are to be recorded while disposing of the representation but reasons are to be recorded on file, as per the decision of the Apex Court in E.G. Nambudri (supra). However, on perusal of the order passed on representation I find that no reasons have been recorded. The Apex Court in S.T. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 524 clearly ruled that the confidential report is a tool for human resource development but not for fault finding process.
16. Another aspect of the matter is that though no reasons are to be recorded while disposing of the representation but reasons are to be recorded on file, as per the decision of the Apex Court in E.G. Nambudri (supra). However, on perusal of the order passed on representation I find that no reasons have been recorded. The Apex Court in S.T. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 524 clearly ruled that the confidential report is a tool for human resource development but not for fault finding process.
17. Insofar as limitation is concerned, as against the adverse remarks applicants representation was disposed of, and within one year he has approached the Tribunal, the OA is within limitation.
18. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to expunge the adverse remarks from the ACRs of applicant. He shall be entitled to all consequences in law. No costs. It is noticed that the applicant has not agitated in the above OA about the competency of the General Manager to decide his representation against the adverse remarks. The OA was allowed mainly on the grounds that the second respondents letter dated 10.3.2006 was a non-speaking and non-reasoned order.
5. Against the above order of this Tribunal, the matter was carried to the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.13197/2009 which was decided on 09.09.2010. The pertinent paragraph reads as follows :-
Since Dhiraj Jain has been permitted to submit a representation against the below benchmark gradings we permit him to include in the representation the plea to expunge the adverse remarks in the ACR performas. We permit Dhiraj Jain to file a comprehensive response within 4 weeks from today. Needless to state if filed, the response pertaining to the below benchmark grading as also adverse remarks would be considered and decided with a reasoned order.
The reasoned order would be passed within 12 weeks of receipt of the representation from Dhiraj Jain
6. The second respondent has considered the applicants representation dated 05.10.2010 and passed his order in the letter dated 20.12.2010. We have carefully examined the impugned letter and note that the points taken by the applicant in his representation have been considered in the said letter and decided that there was no good ground either to delete the entries already recorded in his ACR for the year ending 31.03.2005 or to upgrade the overall grading. The second respondents letter is a speaking and reasoned order. Even if the applicant has addressed his representation to the Railway Board, the Competent Authority being the General Manager, Northern Railway, he has decided the representation. It is seen from the pleadings that the Railway Board is the Appellate Authority against the orders of the second respondent. We are of the considered view that the impugned letter has been passed by the Competent Authority and is a speaking and reasoned one.
7. For the reasons given within, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter less to speak of issuing notice to the respondents. In the result, the OA is dismissed in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V.K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
rk