Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Geeta Das on 12 May, 2014
æ> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1092 OF 2009
Union of India & Anr. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Geeta Das .. Respondent(s)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5903 of 2009
O R D E R
Heard Mr. K.S. Radhakrishnan learned senior counsel for the appellants Union of India and its functionaries and Mr. Ashok Mathur learned counsel for the respondent.
The respondent was holding the post of Chief Medical Officer and when her turn came for consideration for selection to the post of Chief Medical Officer (Non- Functional Selection Grade) the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 03.03.2004, as alleged by the respondent, ignoring her seniority selected respondent Nos.3 to 43 on the ground that her A.C.Rs. were not good and hence she was unfit. It is not disputed before us that the A.C.Rs. which have been treated as adverse were never communicated to her as a consequence of which she was deprived of making any representation. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. vs. Prabhat Chander Jain & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 363 and Badrinath vs. :2: Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 396 and granted relief to respondent.
Ordinarily, we would have adverted to, the facts in detail and the applicability of the aforesaid decisions but the controversy has been put to rest by a three Judge Bench in the case of S. Sukhdev vs. Union of India and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 566 whereby most of the principles stated in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725 have been affirmed. The three Judge Bench has opined as follows:46 "8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps her/him to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better resykts. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and others10 and K.M. Mishra vs. Central Bank of India and others11 and the other decisions of this Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a good law.
:3:
10. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we are informed that the appellant has already been promoted. In view thereof, nothing more is required to be done. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. However, it will be open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law."
Be it noted, in the instant case when the matter travelled to this Court there was a stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and, therefore, the respondent has not yet been given the benefit of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. Be that as it may, as advised at present, we direct that the appellant shall communicate all the entries that were treated adverse to her as a consequence of which she was not extended the benefit of promotion within three weeks and the respondent shall submit representations in that regard within three weeks therefrom. The competent authority shall deal with the representations within four weeks therefrom by ascribing reasons. We have fixed the time frame as we have been apprised at the Bar that the respondent is going to be superannuated within nine months hence. We hope and trust that the competent authority shall reflect its objectivity while dealing with the representations. In case the :4: representations are allowed and the respondent is found suitable to be promoted then she would be given notional promotion. Needless to state, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
The appeal is disposed of With the aforesaid modification and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5903/2009
This appeal was tagged with the above matter. In view of the order passed in C,A.No.1092 of 2009 this appeal also stands disposed of. The directions given in the above appeal are treated to be given in this appeal also.
....................J. [DIPAK MISRA] ...................J. [N.V. RAMANA] NEW DELHI, MAY 12, 2014.
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1092 OF 2009
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
GEETA DAS Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for c/delay and office report) WITH Civil Appeal NO. 5903 of 2009 (With office report) Date: 12/05/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA (VACATION BENCH) For Appellant(s) Mr. K.S. Radhakrishnan, Sr.Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
C.A.No.1092 of 2009 is disposed of with no order as to costs in terms of the signed order.
In view of the order passed in CA.NO.1092/09, the C.A.No.5903 of 2009 stands disposed of.
(Usha Bhardwaj) [Sneh Lata Sharma]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
Signed order is placed on the file.