Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Shubh Karan Prasad vs Eastern Railway on 18 November, 2020
6 *7 1 O.A. 703 OF 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
,!
No. O.A. 350>00703/2020 Date of order: 18.11.2020
Present Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Shubh Karan Prasad,
S/o Lalita Prasad,
Aged about 57 years,
working as Sr. Divisional Engineer,
-! Izzatnagar under the
Overall control of General Manager,
North East Railway,
! residing at Road No. 2, Railway Officers Colony,
Izzatanagar,
Bareilly, Pin-243122 (U.P.)
Applicant.
-versus-
}. Union of India through General Manager,
Eastern Railway,
Fairlie Place,
Calcutta-700001.
2. Secretary, Railway Board,
Railway Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Member Rolling Stock,
Railway Board,
Railway Bhavan,
New Delhi- 110001.
4. Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer.
Eastern Railway,
Fairlie Place,
■Calcutta- 700001.
5. Chief Works Manager,
Jamalpur Workshop,
Jamalpur,
Dist- Monger,
Bihar-811214.
6. General Manager,
North East Railway,
Gorakhpur,
Pin-273001 (U.P.)
Respondents
2 O.A. 703 OF 2020
For the Applicant : Mr. C. Sinha Counsel
u
Y : For the Respondents Mr. B.P. Manna, Counsel
■;
ORDER (Oral)
Per Dr, Nandlta Chatteriee. Administrative Member:
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of th»o Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-
"(a) To set aside and quash impugned Letter No. AC 221/ARAR/Mech|pt.l dated 26.06.2018 issued by the Dy. Secy. (Confdl) for General Manager, Eastern Railway. | l® !
(b) To direct the respondents to expunge the adverse grading and remarks in the AFAR for the year 2016-17 (period from 01.04.16 to 06.03.2017} and to-
upgrade the grading based on the performance of the applicant in its True perspective. [ {c ) To direct the respondent to consider his case for inclusion of his name in the panel of selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.2020 as published vide letter da+eci 07.01.2020 on the basis of upgraded grading with all consequential benefits.
(d) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper *' I 2. Heard both Ld. Counsel, examined documents on record as we I as i those furnished during hearing.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would vociferously aver that applicant has approached this Tribunal primarily challenging competency of the authority who has disposed of the applicant's representation on 26.6.2018 (Annexure A-3 to the O.A.) tip>on i reconsideration of the applicant's APAR grading for the year 2016-201 7.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant would also furnish during hearing. another communication dated 28.8.2020 in which the authorities hav^ informed as follows:-
i i .■ • --.•sj.'-jbw.":
3 OA 703 OF 2020 it GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAILWAY BOARD No. 2018/SCC/09/59 New Delhi, dt. 28.8.2020 To The General Manager, N.E. Railway.
Gorakhpur [Kind Attn: Shri Afzal Ahmed Khan, AS (Conf) for GM] :
Sub: Representation of Shri S.K. Prasad, Sr. DME/Diesel/NER the th on Dy. CME/Mfg/ER/JMP against entries in his APAR for year 2016-17.
i Ref: Your letter No. Nil dated 14.8.2020.
With reference to you letter mentioned above, it is advised that in terms of DOP&T's O.M. dated 14.5.09, there is no provision for appeal after consideration of representation.
If II 2. Since, your representation dated 07.02.18 against APAR for year 2016-1 ~7 had already been considered by the Competent Authority and decision was communicated to Eastern Railway vide Railway Board's letter dated 25.6.1 Q. Your appeal for reconsideration/upgradation of APAR grading for the year 201 <S- 17 cannot be acceded to.
$d/-
j* (Sushato BhadraJ USfConf.} Railway Board"
Ld. Counsel for the applicant would, hence, urge that as : communication dated 28.8.2020 refers to the applicant's representafioo i dated 7.2.2018 purportedly issued by an incompetent authority, he may be accorded liberty to further reiterate his prayers to the compe authority who may be directed to dispose of the same in a time bound manner.
! 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents, per contra, would robustly argue that the applicant, being a Class I Officer, should have been aware of the ;
designation of his competent authority and ought to have addressed his representation only to such authority. Further, instead of challenging the communication dated 28.8.2020 brought forth during hearing. the applicant is meaninglessly praying, for liberty to prefer further representations to the same authority.
• ./ 5L
4 O.A. 703 OF 2020
5. Upon perusal of the records, the following transpires:-
! ; (i) The applicant had preferred .his representation. dated 7.2.20 S i i ! (Annexure AL2 to the O.A.) to the "Member Rolling Stock, Ministry z>f : Railways" who, according to him, is the competent authority. [
(ii) His prayer was rejected on 26.6.2018 (Annexure A-3 to the O.A.), jpy the General Manager, and the applicant would submit that the General i ! Manager was not the competent authority to decide on his final APKkR !
- gradings.
; (iii) His further representation dated 14.8.2020 (Annexure A-5 to the o|a. .) !! ! was addressed to the Secretary, Railway Board, who, according to flno v;
ii % ll^^applicant, was the competent authority as alternate to Member, Rol ipQ Stock.
(iv) When the respondents reiterated their rejection on 28.8.2020, th^y : purportedly did so in response to his letter dated 14.8.2020. ;
i i; At the same time, however, the respondents have. referred to disposal of his prayer dated 7.2.2018 by the competent authority, who, os i per A-3 to the O.A. is the General Manager and not the addressee of His representations at A-2 and A-5 to the O.A. respectively. The applicant Hos contested such competence in this O.A. and would reemphasize that His : representation should be disposed of by the authority declarea I os 1 competent as per Rules.
:
6. The competence of the authority is required to be decided wirHouit ! i ambiguity.
In Dev Dutt vs. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725, the Hon'ble [Apoox Court has held that representation against an APAR must be dispos[ecd of fairly and by an authority higher than the one who has made such feo+ry.
7. Hence, as prayed for, the applicant is given liberty to prefor a I j i '--
^•j 5 O.A. 703 OF 2020 7 / comprehensive representation to the authority, competent for ' }n& purpose of deciding on his APAR gradings with finality. If so received, respondents will obtain the decision of the authority who is competent as ■: ' per Rules in the form of a reasoned and speaking order.
The applicant may prefer such comprehensive representation wi Inin 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the competent . authority shall dispose of the same within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
This court has not entered info the merits of the matter and authorities are at liberty to decide in accordance with law.
With these directions, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
/ .
/ (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) Administrative Member $P i