Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ramesh Chandra Sharma, I.P.S. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(3)SLJ205(CAT)
ORDER
M.P. Singh, Vice Chairman
1. The applicant has filed this Original Application claiming the following main reliefs -
"(b) quash the decision of the DPC held on 11.12.1998 declining to make any change in the select list of 1991.
(c) the respondents be commanded to promote the petitioner to the IPS cadre from 1987, as submitted above, or in the alternative from 1991 in view of the decision of the Tribunal given in the previous O. A.No. 1997 1995.
(d) the respondents may please be commanded to give the petitioner advantages of senior scale and selection grade after calculating the proforma promotion from 1987 or 1991 in the cadre of IPS with all financial benefits,"
2. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the applicant was a member of the State Police Service. He was appointed as Dy. Supdt. of Police with effect from 10.10.1979. He was eligible for induction to the Indian Police Service (for short 'IPS') under the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. A selection committee meeting was held on 12.2.1991 to prepare the select list of 1991 for promotion to the IPS cadre of Madhya Pradesh. The name of the applicant was placed at serial No. 29 in the eligibility list. The selection committee examined the ACRs of the eligible officers, including the applicant. The applicant was assessed as 'very good'. He could not be included in the select list due to the statutory limit on the size of the selected candidates. The select list of 1991 consists of 11 officers. One Shri D.S. Sengar, who was placed at serial No. 16 of the eligibility list, was assessed by the selection committee as 'outstanding' and thus included at serial No. 1 in the select panel. The applicant had filed an OA No. 32/94 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench against some adverse remarks for the year ending 1980. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 31.1.1997. Accordingly, the State Govt. expunged the adverse remarks of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed an OA No. 199/1995 before this Tribunal in which he had prayed that a review selection committee meeting be convened to consider his case for induction to IPS, consequent to expunction of adverse remarks. The Tribunal vide its order dated 12.12.1997 in OA 199 of 1995 directed the respondents to convene a review selection committee within three months from the date of communication of the said order. A review selection committee meeting was accordingly convened on 11.12.1998 to consider the case of the applicant for inclusion in the select list of 1991. On over all assessment of his service record, the review committee again assessed the applicant as 'very good' even after the expunction of adverse remarks. Aggrieved by this, he has filed this OA.
3. Heard Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, Sr. Advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.A. Dharmadhikari for respondents 1 & 3. The learned Counsel for respondent-UPSC has submitted that the contention of the applicant that his service record is of outstanding grading is not correct. He has submitted that the grading given by the reporting/ reviewing officer in the ACR reflects the merits of the officer reported upon in isolation whereas the classification made by the selection committee is made on the basis of logical and indepth examination of the service record of the officers in the zone of consideration. The applicant is substituting his own judgment to that of statutorily set up selection committee, which include persons having requisite knowledge, experience and expertise to assess the service records and ability to judge the suitability of officers. According to him the selection committee after indepth examination of the service record of the applicant came to the conclusion and assessed him as 'very good'. There is no question of his being relegated to a lower position or to cause him to suffer his inclusion in the select list of 1990-91. He has submitted that the Tribunal or the Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an Appellate Authority. To support his claim, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UPSC v. H.L. Dev., AIR 1988 SC 1069 & State of M.P. v. Sharikant Chapekar, JT 1992(5) SC 633.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has all along been given 'outstanding' reports and he has also been awarded many appreciation letters for rendering outstanding service in the Police. According to him, the applicant could not by any stretch of imagination be assessed as 'very good' He has also submitted that the record of the applicant was better than Shri D.S. Sengar and in any case equally good, if not better. As Shri Sengar has been graded as 'outstanding by the selection committee, the applicant should also be granted the same grading, and included in the select list of 1991, at serial No. 2 i.e. immediately after Shri D.S. Sengar, who was placed at serial No. 16 in the consideration zone and was senior to the applicant. The learned Counsel further contended that in the subsequent selection, the applicant was assessed as 'outstanding' officer by the selection committee and was included as such in the select list.
5. The question for consideration before us is whether the assessment made by the selection committee categorizing the applicant as 'very good' in the review selection committee for the year 1991 is justified on the basis of confidential records of the applicant. On our directions, the respondent-State Government has produced the ACR dossier of the applicant and Shri D.S. Sengar, as well as copies of the minutes of the Selection Committees.
5.1 In Para 6.1 of their reply, the respondents have clearly stated that the selection committee examined the ACRs of the eligible officers including the applicant for the preceding five years upto 3989-90.
5.2 Although, we are aware of the settled legal position that the Courts and Tribunals cannot substitute themselves as the selection committee and make selection, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly after looking to the ACR dossier of the applicant, we find that this is a fit case where we should go into depth of the process of selection made by the so called high level committee. We have very minutely gone to the gradings and remarks awarded to the applicant for relevant years which are summarised as below-
(i) 1985-86--In this year the applicant has been graded as 'outstanding' at all levels i.e. by the Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer, Accepting Authority. We find that the applicant has been assessed as 'outstanding' by the Collector, Drug; and also the Reviewing Officer i.e. DIG. In fact the Reviewing Officer has considered him "as an asset to the department and the same assessment has been agreed to by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, IG Police and the Director General of Police. A letter of appreciation was also issued to him by the IG Police on 28.2.1986, for his commandable job during 'Bharat Bandh'.
(ii) 1986-87--The applicant has been graded as 'outstanding by the reporting officer, which assessment has been agreed to by the Collector, Durg and Commissioner, Raipur Division as well as by the I.G. Police
(iii) 1987-88--The applicant has been graded as 'outstanding by the Reporting Officer which has been agreed by the Reviewing Officer and the Transport Commissioner (the then DIG Raipur), who has also described the applicant as an asset to the department. The Transport Commissioner has given the following remarks-
"This young boy is worth has weight in gold. As far his integrity, it should be an object of envy and reverence for any good police set up. The department shall fail in its duty if this boy is not given the due encouragement and recognition which he richly deserves. An asset to the department".
The above remarks have been agreed to by the Commissioner Raipur Division, as well as by the I.G. Police, and I.G. Police while agreeing with the above remarks had categorised him as "an Officer with outstanding calibre". These remarks have also been counter-signed by the Director General of Police. The applicant has also been issued an appreciation letter by the Home Secretary, Govt. of MP in Oct.'87.
(iv) 1988-89--The applicant has been graded as 'outstanding' by the reporting officer, as well as by the Additional Development Commissioner for Handloom. He has also been graded as 'outstanding' by the next higher officer describing him as an asset to the police department. The same remarks have been agreed by the Managing Director, MPSTC, Ltd., who had also described him as 'outstanding' officer. The I.G. Police has also rated him as 'outstanding' and as an asset to the force. This CR has also been countersigned by the D.G. Police. During this year the work of the applicant has also been commended by the Director General of Police vide his letter dated 25.5.1989.
(v) 1989-90--The applicant has been graded as 'outstanding' by the Reporting Officer which has been agreed to by the Collector, Durg. He has also been rated as an 'outstanding' officer by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, M.P. Bhopal & I.G. Police. The DG Police has, however, rated him as 'very good', without assigning any reasons.
The work of the applicant during this year has also been commended by the I.G. Police, vide letter dated 4.12.1989.
We have also seen the ACRs of the applicant for the earlier period of 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 in which also he has been rated as outstanding. We are aware of our constrains, due to various pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is not the function of the Courts/Tribunals to scrutinise the confidential reports and relative merits, and assume the role of the selecting committee. But, in the instant case, we find that looking to the overall gradings given to the applicant, as summarised above, the performance of the applicant has consistently been flawless and outstanding. The applicant has been assessed as 'outstanding' officer by all the authorities i.e. by the reporting, reviewing & accepting authorities. In addition, he had also been awarded various appreciation letters during the relevant period by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh as well as by the DG Police and IG Police.
5.2 In view of the above analysis of the CRs of the applicant, we find that the 'very good' remark given by the DG Police in the CR of the applicant for the year 1989-90 is not fair, justified and proper. In this year the applicant has been assessed as 'outstanding' by the Supdt. of Police, Durg, Collector Durg, D.I.G. Raipur Range, Commissioner, Raipur Division and I.G. Police, Shri P.D. Malviya, the then DGP has simply stated that "Shri Sharma's work has been very good". No reasons have been assigned by the DGP while downgrading the CR of the applicant from 'outstanding' to 'very good'. The DGP should have expressed clearly with specific reasons his agreement or disagreement with regard to overall grading of 'outstanding' given to the applicant by 5 senior officers at various levels, which has hot been done. Therefore, the overall grading of 'outstanding' given to the applicant by the officers at different levels in the ACR of the applicant for the year 1989-90 cannot be downgraded to 'very good'. In the case of Thanhawla v. Union of India and Ors. (1998) 37 ATC 601 also, the issue of downgrading the ACR from 'outstanding' to 'very good' by the accepting authority was involved, and the Tribunal in the said case has held as under-
"7. From the above decisions, it is very clear that the officers entrusted to write the ACR are required to make proper assessment. The Accepting or Reviewing Authority have, no doubt, the right to change the grading if the Reporting Officer and/or the Reviewing Authority give higher grading.
The Accepting Authority may lower the gradation for just and proper cause, but in such cases it is always necessary to give reasons of the downgradation. If the reasons are plausible and acceptable such down-gradation may be regarded as just and reasonable. An ACR for an employee is sancrosanct in his service career. If for certain reasons the Accepting Authority finds that the gradation given by the Reporting Authority or Reviewing Authority is not just and proper, he should give the reasons at the time of lowering the gradation. .......In the present case at least the ACR gradations for the period.......were downgraded. In one case it was downgraded by the Reviewing Authority which was accepted by the Accepting Authority. In the other period the gradation given by the reporting authority as 'outstanding' was approved by the Reviewing Authority but the Accepting Authority lowered the gradation without recording any reasons. This, in our opinion, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court, is not at all sustainable. Therefore, such downgradation is liable to be set aside. Accordingly we do so....."
In the instant case also, no reasons were assigned by the DGP while downgrading the ACR of the applicant from 'outstanding to 'very good' for the year 1989-90. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, downgradation of the ACR of the applicant from 'outstanding' to 'very good' is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed.
6. We have also seen the ACR dossier or Shri D.S. Sengar for the relevant period from 1985-86 to 1989-90, who has been assessed as 'outstanding' by the selection committee in the meeting held on 12.2.1991. We find that the applicant had his service records of outstanding gradings and his service record is, if not better than, equal in quality to that of Shri D.S. Sengar. In fact the applicant has earned more appreciation/commendatory letters than Shri D.S. Sengar from the State Government as well as DG Police etc. We have also carefully seen the ACR of Shri D.S. Sengar for the year 1989-90 (in which the applicant had been downgraded by Shri P.D. Malviya, the then DGP) and find that the said Shri P.D. Malviya has simply endorsed the ACR of Shri D.S. Sengar for the year 1989-90 with "no comments". We are, therefore, of the considered view that the assessment made by the selection committee is not fair, as by any stretch of imagination and by any standard, the confidential reports of the applicant cannot be graded as 'very good' as the applicant for the entire relevant period has consistently been rated as 'outstanding' at all levels and in addition he was also given many appreciation letters/commendatory letters for doing outstanding work by the Govt. of M.P. and the Director General of Police during this period. Therefore, we feel that the grading given by the Selection Committee has been vitiated by arbitrariness by not assessing the applicant at par with Shri D.S. Sengar.
7. In the result, the Original Application is allowed. The proceedings of the review Selection Committee dated 11.12.1998 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to hold a meeting of the review Selection Committee to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the observations made above for including his name in the list of IPS cadre of Madhya Pradesh for the year 1991, by ignoring the remark of 'very good' given by the DGP in the year 1989-90, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the review Selection Committee finds the applicant fit for inclusion in the select list of IPS for the year 1991, he shall be granted all consequential benefits including seniority.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly looking to the fact that the applicant has been compelled to come to the Tribunal time and again, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand only) on the respondents which shall be paid to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.