Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Raghuveer Shrivastava vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 9 December, 2025
1 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00136/2016
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 9th day of December, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Raghuveer Shrivastava S/o Shri D. D. Shrivastava, Secretary Jail Govt. of
MP, aged about 60 years, R/o 17 Rishi Nagar, Char Imli, Bhopal (M.P.)
Pin Code 462016
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, along with
Shri A H Khan)
Versus
(1) The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel
Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training,
Govt. of India, New Delhi. Pin - 110001.
(2) The Chief Secretary, to Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Mantralaya,
Vallabh Bhawan (M.P.) 462004.
(3) The State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Department of
General Administration, Govt. M.P., Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan (M.P.)
462004.
(4) Shri Ravendra Kumar Pastaur, S/o not known to the applicant,
Commissioner Ujjain Division Ujjain (M.P.) 456001.
(5) Smt. Seema Sharma, Principal Secretary of Home Department, Govt.
of M.P. Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) 462004.
Page 1 of 14
VISHAL 2025.12.10
16:26:36
KUSHWAH+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016
Reserved
(6) Arun Kumar Pandey, Principal Secretary, Govt. of M.P., 26-Kisan
Bhavan Mandi Board, Bhopal (M.P.).
(7) V.K.Batham, Principal Secretary, Department of Legislative Affairs,
Govt. of M.P., Vindhyanchal Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) 462004.
- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri S P Singh, Shri Divesh Jain)
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM:
Through this Original Application, the applicant is seeking directions to the respondents to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Principal Secretary by ignoring the uncommunicated Confidential Report for the period 2012-13 and if found fit for promotion and to give him all consequential benefits from the date his juniors have been promoted. He has also prayed that the impugned order dated 29.12.2015 be quashed and set aside.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed to the State Administrative Service. He was subsequently appointed by promotion to the Indian Administrative Service and was allotted 1992 batch. The position of the applicant appears at Sl. No. 107 in the list of members of all India Administrative Service, as on 01.10.2013 (Annexure A/1). The Respondents No. 4 to 7 are junior to the Page 2 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 3 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved applicant and their name appears at serial no. 109 to 112 respectively. The applicant submits that he had completed the requisite years of service (25) for promotion to the first above super time scale i.e. Principal Secretary to the State of M.P.. The applicant was never punished for any act of misconduct nor was any adverse entry in his confidential report communicated to him. On 18.12.2015, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for considering the eligible cases for promotion to the IAS i.e. to the first above super time scale i.e. Principal Secretary to the Govt. of M.P. The Departmental Promotion Committee comprised of Chief Secretary and two senior most Additional Chief Secretaries to the Govt. of M.P. On the recommendations of the DPC, an order was issued on 29.12.2015 (Annexure A/3) wherein as many as 11 officers of 1992 batch have been promoted to the post of Principal Secretary. In the said order, the name of the applicant did not find mention and the persons junior to him i.e. respondents 3 to 6 were promoted to the post of Principal Secretary. Applicant submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of M.P. on learning about this. He informed that since no adverse entry in his confidential report had been communicated to him and therefore he cannot be denied promotion on the basis of uncommunicated Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. He also mentioned that the Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2012-13, Page 3 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 4 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved 2013-14, 2014-15 had not been sent to him till date. On 22.12.2015 (Annexure A/5), he again submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary wherein he mentioned that he was denied promotion on the basis of some adverse comments in his confidential report for the period 2012-13. However, the said report was never communicated to him and no opportunity was afforded to represent against the same. Vide application dated 21.12.2015 (Annexure A/6), the applicant sought a copy of the minutes of Departmental Promotion Committee. A letter dated 02.05.2015 was issued by General Administration Department whereby the confidential reports for the period 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were sent to him. No information was supplied to the applicant on the pretext that the minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee are confidential and cannot be supplied under the Right to Information. The applicant was informed that there were some adverse entries in his confidential report for the period 2012-13. A copy of the said confidential report was sent to him vide letter dated 02.05.2015 via speed post received on 07.05.2015. The applicant submits that vide letter dated 02.05.2015, he was communicated Confidential reports (Performance Appraisal Report) for the period 2011-12 and for the period 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013. A copy of the letter dated 02.05.2015 along with the Performance Appraisal Reports for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and 01.04.2013 to Page 4 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 5 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved 30.09.2013 are annexed as Annexure A/7. Therefore, the applicant maintains his stand that the APARs for the period 2012-13 on the basis of which he has been denied promotion to the post of Principal Secretary was never communicated to him. The Applicant made subsequent representations on 30.12.2015 and 18.01.2016 to the Principal Secretary (Personnel) Department of General Administration, Govt. M.P. (Annexure A/8). Hence the applicant contends that he never got an opportunity to represent against the impugned confidential report. During the period 2012-13, the reporting authority without any justifiable cause made adverse remarks in the confidential report of the applicant. The same has been accepted the by the then Reviewing and Accepting Authority without recording any reason. The adverse entries were never communicated to the applicant. Therefore, he was not afforded an opportunity to represent against the same. The applicant submits that the confidential reports for the period under consideration were consistently very good/outstanding category except the APAR for the period 2012-13 which was never conveyed or communicated to him. He made subsequent representation to the Chief Secretary on 18.01.2016 (Annexure A/10). The applicant retired on 31.01.2016. On the eve of his retirement, he was transferred from the office of Commissioner Panchayati Raj to the post of Secretary Department of Jail vide order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure A/11). The Page 5 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 6 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved applicant was relieved on 04.01.2016 (Annexure A/12) at midnight. The same was done in order to harass and humiliate the applicant and the action of the respondents in denying him promotion clearly reflects arbitrariness and malice which is detrimental to the applicant's rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devdatt vs Union of India & Ors AIR (2008) SC 2513 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically stated that any entry in the confidential report which comes in the way of promotion of an employee has to be mandatorily communicated and in case such entry is not communicated, the same cannot be taken into account for denying promotion. Therefore, the applicant has prayed that the respondents be directed to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Principal Secretary by ignoring the uncommunicated confidential report for the period 2012-13 and if found fit for promotion, to give him all consequential benefits from the date his juniors have been promoted. He has also prayed that the impugned order dated 29.12.2015 be quashed and set aside.
3. The respondents nos. 2 & 3 have furnished their reply wherein it has been submitted that the Departmental Scrutiny Committee was held on 18.12.2015 for consideration of the eligibility of the officers for the Page 6 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 7 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved promotion to the post of the Principal Secretary amongst the Indian Administrative Services Officers of the year 1992 batch. The applicant's name was also under consideration. The Scrutiny Committee took note of the remarks of the Reporting Officer who gave 7 marks to the applicant in the APAR of the year 2012-13. In the column of integrity, it was mentioned as follows: "since an enquiry by E.O.W. is on therefore, no comments".
In respect of point No. 3 & 9, the Reporting Officer had further made a remark that "failure to keep a check on the printing of forms and ensure that the process is as per Rules". The Reporting Officer also made some adverse remarks about the administrative capability of the applicant and the fact that he was not adhering to Rules, Process and Protocol. The Scrutiny Officer, the Chief Secretary, considered the opinion of the Reporting Officer and gave him 7.5 marks. Since the APAR had been communicated to the applicant and no representation was received by him as per the guidelines of the Govt. of India therefore the remarks of reviewing authority have become final. After considering the remarks of Reporting Officer, the Scrutiny Committee considered the applicant unfit for promotion. As per Clause 7.2 of Annexure 2 of the DoP&T Circular No. 20011/4/92-AIS(II) dated 28.03.2000, it is specifically mentioned that "while making the assessment, the Committee should not be guided, Page 7 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 8 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved merely by the overall grading that may be recorded in the ACR's, but should make its own assessment on the basis of the overall entries made in the ACR's."
Hence as per the remarks given by the Reporting Officer, the applicant has been considered as "Very good". However looking into the seriousness of the adverse remarks on individual points and instructions of the Govt. of India, the Committee did not find the applicant suitable for promotion to the pay scale of Principal Secretary. No review DPC could be held as the matter was pending adjudication before this Tribunal. The contention of the applicant that the APAR for the year 2012-13 was not communicated to him is not tenable. The APAR for the year 2011-12 (01.04.11 to 31.03.2012), 2012-13 (01.04.2012 to 31.04.2013) and 2013-14 (01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013) were communicated to the applicant through an official letter dated 02.05.2015. This letter was sent from Vallabh Bhawan Post Office, Bhopal on 05.05.2015. The respondents have also mentioned the speed post number in their reply. A copy of the dispatch register dated 05.05.2015 along with covering letter has been filed as Annexure R-1.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder and submitted that the State Government is bound to send the APAR of each year separately through Page 8 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 9 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved speed post. There is no evidence except the contention of the respondents that the APAR for the period 2012-13 has been communicated to the applicant. The adverse comments by the reporting officer were made in a biased/improper manner and no opportunity was ever afforded to him to represent against the same. Hence this uncommunicated APAR could not have been taken into consideration for denying promotion to him. Assuming though denying that the APAR for the period 2012-13 was communicated vide letter dated 02.05.2015 in a highly belated manner and is contrary to the rules. Hence the adverse entry made in APAR for the period 2012-13 deserves to be expunged on this ground alone.
5. The applicant was allowed to file an M.A.569/2017 for taking additional documents on record vide order dated 04.09.2017 wherein the he has submitted that he had filed second appeal dated 28/4/2016 before the M.P. State Information Commissioner, vide Appeal No. A-2488/2016 (Annexure IA/1). Consequently, the Public Information Officer vide reply dated 23.08.2017 supplied copies of applicant's APAR for year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 (Annexure IA/3) to him. A copy of the reply dated 23.08.2017 submitted by the Public Information Officer before the M.P. State Information Commission and DPC minutes dated 18.12.2015 are annexed as Annexure IA/2. The applicant has also quoted the case of Shri Vinod Kumar to state that despite the fact that there were Page 9 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 10 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved adverse entries for his APAR during the year 2010-11, 2011-12, he got promoted to the post of Principal Secretary. He has also quoted case of Smt. Smita Bhardwaj wherein apart from the fact that her 5 years APAR were not available, she was still given promotion to the post of Principal Secretary. Hence the applicant has challenged the DPC minutes held on 18.12.2015. The applicant came to know about the remarks given by the reporting officer, only when he received the reply dated 24.08.2017 in respect of the appeal filed by him before the Second Appellate Authority i.e. M.P. State Information Commissioner.
6. We have considered the matter, heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents and the case laws relied upon by the counsels.
7. We take note of the applicant's contention submits that he has not been communicated the APAR for the year 2012-13. The respondents have submitted that the APAR for the year 2011-12 (01.04.11 to 31.03.2012), 2012-13 (01.04.2012 to 31.04.2013) and 2013-14 (01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013) were communicated to the applicant through official letter dated 02.05.2015 via speed post. This letter was sent from Vallabh Bhawan Post Office, Bhopal on 05.05.2015. The respondents have also mentioned speed post number in their reply. Page 10 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 11 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved
8. However, neither the applicant nor the respondents have been able to establish conclusively as to whether the impugned APAR was sent to the applicant or the contention of applicant that he did not receive the same. Therefore we are constrained to go with the observations of the DPC that the applicant was given adverse remarks on certain individual points in the APAR of 2012-13, against which he has not represented. Therefore, it has attained finality.
9. The applicant's contention is that he did not receive APAR for the year 2012-13 along with the other APARs for the period 2011-12 (01.04.11 to 31.03.2012), and 2013-14 (01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013) which were communicated to him vide respondents' letter dated 02.05.2015. We take note of the letter dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure A/5) written by the applicant to the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh and subsequent letter to the Chief Minister, Govt. of M.P.. In the first letter, he has mentioned that he has not received impugned APAR and he would like to know the comments which were being given by the Reporting Officer in his APAR for the year 2012-13 since he was certain that adverse remarks were given by the Reporting Officer. He would have definitely represented against the same. In the absence of the communication by the respondents, he has not been able to represent against the said remarks. In his subsequent letter dated 29.12.20215 Page 11 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 12 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved (Annexure A/5) to the Chief Minister, he has mentioned that in case he would have got some letter or intimation, then he would have definitely represented against the adverse remarks. He has also mentioned that DPC held on 18.12.2015 did not consider him for promotion to the post of Principal Secretary and it was only after the conclusion of the DPC that he learnt he could not be promoted on account of his APAR for the year 2012-13. It is not understood as to why applicant took 8 months to make a representation and not immediately on receipt of the letter dated 02.05.2015 (Annexure A/7) wherein the APAR for the year 2012-13 was not enclosed along with the APARs of the other two years. Since he did not receive a copy of the same, how did he presume that the Reporting officer had given him adverse comments and this became the basis for the DPC not to consider his case. As per his own contention, he got a copy of the DPC minutes on 24.08.2017 as per the directions of the Second Appellate authority i.e. M.P. State Information Commissioner. When the applicant got the DPC minutes in 2017, his assumption that the DPC had not considered his case on account of the adverse remarks in the APAR for the year 2012-13 is unsubstantiated. This fact has also been mentioned by him in his letter dated 29.12.2015 (Annexure A/3) addressed to Chief Minister, M.P.. The applicant waited for the DPC to conclude and when he was not successful in getting his promotion, he represented to Page 12 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 13 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved the authorities claiming that he had not received the APAR for the year 2012-13 as an afterthought.
10. Since there was no representation against the adverse remarks of APAR for the year 2012-13, the DPC took the remarks of the Reporting Officer as final and declared applicant unfit for promotion.
11. We take note of the DPC general guidelines for promotion etc and functioning of screening committee, wherein Clause 7 it has been observed as follows:
"7. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 7.1 ... While making the assessment, the Committee should not be guided merely by the overall grading that may be recorded in the ACRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the overall entries made in the ACRs."
12. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Nutan Arvind vs Union of India & Anr, 1996 SC (2) 488, wherein it has been held as follows:
"The DPC which is a high-level committee, considered the merits of the respective candidates and the appellant, though considered, was not promoted. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that one K.S. Rao was the officer at the relevant time to review the performance of the appellant whereas in fact one Menon had reviewed it. The latter was not competent to review the performance of the appellant and to Page 13 of 14 VISHAL 2025.12.10 16:26:36 KUSHWAH+05'30' 14 O.A.No. 200/00136/2016 Reserved write the confidentials. We are afraid we cannot go into that question. It is for the DPC to consider at the time when the assessment of the respective candidates is made. When a high-level committee had considered the respective merits of the candidates assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, this Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority. The DPC would come to its own conclusion on the basis of review by an officer and whether he is or is not competent to write the confidentials is for them to decide and call for report from the proper officer. It had done that exercise and found the appellant not fit for promotion. Thus we do not find any manifest error of law for interference."
14. Therefore, in light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs and case laws on the subject and the directions given by the O.M. No. 20011/4/92-AIS(II) dated 28.03.2000, we find that there is no merit in the case of the applicant.
15. Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MallikaArya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 14 of 14
VISHAL 2025.12.10
16:26:36
KUSHWAH+05'30'