Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs D Nataraja on 29 November, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
th
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO.45199 OF 2013 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN :
1. The Union of India
Rep by its Secretary
Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation
(Sub-ordinate Statistics Service)
Sardar Patel Bavan
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Additional Director General (FOD)
National Sample Survey Organisation
(Field Operation Division-FOD)
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Director General (Regional)
National Sample Survey Organisation
5th Floor, E & F Wing
Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala
Bangalore. ..Petitioners
(By Sri Hanumanthappa A, Adv.,)
-2-
AND :
D. Nataraja
Aged about 52 years
S/o late K.T. Doddaveera Shetty
Working as Assistant Director-II
Opp. to Rajajinagara Fire Station
Nest to Government Tool Room Centre
Rajajinagara Industrial Estate
Bangalore-560010. ..Respondent
(By Sri Hemanth R. Chandangoudar, Adv.,)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
4.10.2012 (Annexure-A) and dismiss the
O.A.No.186/2010.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day, MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J., made the
following:-
ORDER
The order dated 4.10.2012 passed in O.A.No.186/2010 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is called in question in this writ petition.
2. The records reveal that the respondent was promoted as Statistical Investigator Grade-I from Statistical Investigator Grade-II by the order dated 30.1.2009. For the said purpose, the Departmental -3- Promotion Committee met on 15.1.2009 and decided to promote the respondent, based on which the order of promotion came to be issued. There cannot be any dispute that the promotion would be accorded by the concerned only after due verification of the past Service Records of the employee. Thus, it is clear that the promotion was accorded to the respondent only after due verification of all the Service Records.
When the facts stood thus, the respondent is denied Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP), a financial upgradation, on the ground that he was found unfit by the Committee on account of "below bench mark" assessment for two years during the years 2004 to 2008. Being aggrieved by such refusal of financial upgradation by the Department, the respondent approached Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.186/2010, which came to be rightly allowed by the Tribunal.
-4-
3. The ACRs of the respondent for the periods from 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2006-07 were "good". However, the ACRs for the years 2004-05 and 2005- 06 were recorded as "below average". Undisputedly such remarks relating to below average recorded in ACRs must be communicated to the employee as per the Rules. Admittedly, no communication is made to the respondent by the Department in that regard. The same is clear from the order of the Tribunal. Even the advocate for the Department before the Tribunal has not opposed such contention of the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that due to non-communication of adverse remarks, the adverse remarks need to be over-looked.
4. As the respondent was given promotion after verifying the entire Service Records including the Service Records relating to years 2002 to 2008, it was not open for the Department to withhold MACP, a financial upgradation. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly -5- directed the Department to provide financial upgradation to the respondent.
Since the impugned order is just and proper, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/nk-