Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Azad Singh Age 59 Years vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 6 December, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.4091/2012 Thursday, this the 6th day of December 2012 Honble Shri G George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Shri Azad Singh age 59 years s/o late Shri Khem Chand, Asstt. Supdt. r/o C-7, Single Storey, Central Jail Staff Quarters Janak Puri, New Delhi-64 .. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri S C Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Sachivalaya, IP Estate New Delhi-2 2. Principal Secretary (Home) Delhi Sachivalaya, IP Estate New Delh-2 3. Director General of Prisons Prisons Headquarters Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk Janak Puri, New Delhi-64 ..Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G George Paracken:
This is the second round of litigation by the applicant. Earlier the applicant has approached this Tribunal vide OA-1929/2012. His grievance was that he was not given the third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme with effect from August 2008. The said OA was disposed of, vide Annexure A-6 order dated 31.5.2012, directing the respondents to look into his two representations and to decide his case within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. They were also directed to intimate the decision taken in the matter to the applicant by way of a reasoned and speaking order.
2. It is in terms of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal that the Annexure A-1 impugned order dated 21.11.2012 has been passed by the respondents. In the said order, the Public Information Officer (PHQ), Delhi in the Office of the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, Janak Puri, New Delhi has informed the applicant that as per the information received by him from the Establishment Branch, PHQ, his case was placed before the DSC meeting constituted for the purpose of considering grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP scheme held on 7.11.2012 and his case was also considered on the basis of available record. However, DSC recommended to defer the case of the applicant due to non-availability of ACRs for the period 2007-08 and from 2009-10 to 2011-12. The Public Information Officer (PHQ), New Delhi has also informed the applicant that if he is not satisfied with the aforesaid reply, he can file an appeal within 30 days to the Director General (Prisons).
3. In our considered view, the aforesaid order passed by the Public Information Officer (PHQ), Delhi reflects his arrogance, insensivity and unaccountability. The concept of public accountability and performance of functions go side by side. Proper and timely action in accordance with law are their essential characteristics. What the applicant needs is the ACP/MACP benefits admissible to him under rules. He is not asking for any favour. Honble Justice Swatanter Kumar in M/s Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, (2011) 9 SCC 354 has held that ..Every officer in the hierarchy of the State, by virtue of his being `public officer' or `public servant', is accountable for his decisions to the public as well as to the State. This concept of dual responsibility should be applied with its rigours in the larger public interest.. His Lordship has further stated in the said judgment that .public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions. If what ought to have been done is not done, responsibility should be fixed on the erring officers; then alone, the real public purpose of an answerable administration would be satisfied.
4. In the instant case, instead of solving genuine problem faced by the applicant, the respondents are leaving him helpless. What way it will help him by making an appeal to the Director (General) Prisons)? It is an undisputed fact that non-availability of ACRs is not something which can be attributable to the government employee as they are not their custodians. They are supposed to be under the safe custody of the respondent-department. Therefore, they are responsible for producing the same before the competent authority for proper consideration of their cases. In case they are not available, it is for them to devise the appropriate method so that the applicant is given his due benefits within the due date. To do things within a reasonable time is an obligation of the State, as is imposed by the Legislature itself and even otherwise as per the canons of proper governance. It is also incumbent upon the respondents to take appropriate punitive action against those officials who were responsible for the safe custody of the ACRs of the applicant but failed to do so.
5. We, therefore, dispose of the present OA at the admission stage itself by directing the Director General of Prisons, New Delhi (respondent No.3) to ensure that the applicants case is considered for grant of financial upgradation by the appropriate authority within the next two months and grant him the same if he is eligible for it, under intimation to him. In case the respondent No.3 fails to comply with the aforesaid directions within the prescribed period of time, the applicant will be entitled for interest for the delayed payment at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it has become due till it is paid to him. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manjulika Gautam ) ( G George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) /vb/