Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pala Singh Tanck S/O Sh. Baru Ram vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 1111/2011 New Delhi, this the 29th day of March, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi,Vice Chairman(A) Pala Singh Tanck s/o Sh. Baru Ram, R/o 401, Minto Road Hostel, New Delhi-110 002 Working as Adviser (Statistics), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Tariff Commission, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Gupta) Versus Union of India, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001 (Through its Secretary) Respondent O R D E R Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Pala Singh Tanck, applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking declaration to the effect that O.M. dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure-A), vide which his representation against the below benchmark gradings in his APAR for the period 01.08.2006 to 31.03.2007 and 01.04.2007 to 30.08.2007 was rejected, is arbitrary and illegal. Applicant also impugns below benchmark gradings in his ACRs for the year 2006-07 (01.08.2006 to 31.03.2007) and 2007-2008 (01.04.2007 to 13.08.2007) being arbitrary and illegal. In consequence of setting aside of the orders and the ACRs, referred to above, the applicant seeks consideration of his promotion to Senior Administrative Grade (pay scale of Rs.37400-67000 + GP Rs.10,000).
2. The facts of the case as emanate from the pleadings would reveal that the applicant joined the services under the respondents as Assistant Director Grade-IV (Junior Time Scale) after qualifying selection process held by Union Public Service Commission in December, 1981. He was promoted to the post of Director on regular basis in pay scale of Rs.37400-67000+GP Rs.8700) in the year 2003. A DPC was held on 31.07.2009 for considering eligible persons for promotion to SAG and based on the recommendations of the DPC, the respondents issued promotion order in respect of eligible persons recommended by the DPC, vide letter dated 11.12.2009. The applicant being eligible was also considered but was not promoted and was overlooked by his juniors. The applicant, therefore, sought information under Right to Information Act to know the reasons for his being ignored, and was informed that he was not promoted to SAG as his ACRs for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 while posted as Joint Director at N.S.S.O., FOD, Ludhiana were below benchmark. The performance of the applicant during 2000-01 to 2007-08 is as under:-
Year Performance Reporting Officer with designation Reviewing officer with designation 2000-01 V. Good Sh. Vijay Kumar, Director Dr. S.K. Nath, DDG 2001-02 Outstanding -do- -do-
2002-03 V. Good Sh. S. Ray, D.G. -
2003-04 V. Good -do- -
2004-05 Outstanding Dr. S.K. Nath, ADG Sh. J. Hari Narayan, Secretary 2005-06 Outstanding -do- Sh. P.S. Rana, Secretary 2006-07 Average Sh. Sarvesh Kumar, DDG w.e.f.1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 Sh.Jogeshwar Dash, ADG w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 13.08.2007 2007-08 Average Sh. Sarvesh Kumar, DDG w.e.f.1.4.2007 to 31.8.2007 Sh.Jogeshwar Dash, ADG w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 13.08.2007 2008-09 Very Good Smt. Madhu Bala, Adviser w.e.f. 1.9.2007 to 31.3.2008 Sh. S. Mjharwal, Principal Adviser (Spl. Secretary)
3. On being ignored in the matter of promotion, the applicant made representation dated 27.07.2009 to the respondents. On receipt of impugned ACRs, he made another representation dated 24.06.2010, and when no reply was received by him, he filed OA No.825/2010 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide orders dated 12.07.2010 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant within six weeks, and if his ACRs are upgraded commensurate to the benchmark, respondents in that event would consider the applicant for promotion to SAG by constituting a review DPC within six weeks from the date his representation is accepted.
4. Pursuant to directions issued by this Tribunal, respondents decided the representation of the applicant by speaking order dated 25.08.2010, which we may reproduce in its entirety. The same reads thus:-
No. 12011/33/10-APAR(ISSS) Government of India Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation Sardar Patel Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001 Dated 25th August, 2010 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Annual Confidential Report for Shri P.S. Tanck, Director for the period 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 and 1.4.2007 to 30.08.2007 Disposal of representation regarding.
Shri P.S. Tanck, Director vide letter dated 24th May, 2010 has represented against the below benchmark grading in his APAR for the period 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 and 1.4.2007 to 30.8.2007. In order to examine the matter regarding below benchmark grading as represented by Shri Tanck, his representation was forwarded to the respective Reporting and Reviewing Officer for their comments. Based on the comments of Reporting and Reviewing Officer and the submissions made by Shri Tanck, the matter has been examined.
2. In his representation Shri Tanck has submitted that as Director, NSSO (FOD) Ludhiana he was reporting to Additional ADG (FOD), New Delhi during the year 2006-07 & 2007-08. As per instructions ACRs should be reported by an officer who has an opportunity to observe the work of officer reported upon. He has further stated that ADG (FOD) remains Controlling Officer for the Director and his work like Annual Survey of Industry, Agriculture Statistics Survey, his functions as Head of the Office/DDO in respect of the Establishment matter and other financial and technical works were approved and controlled directly by ADG. The work of Director and DDG in the Regional Office is of the same nature and therefore, other officers equal in his designation in the Regional Office (FOD), Chandigarh and Shimla were directly reporting to ADG. However, during the period 2006-07 and 2007-08, DDG, Jaipur who never supervised his work during the period graded him adversely whereas for other years his performance were graded as either Very Good or Outstanding. However basis for this information has not been brought out by him.
2.1 In his representation Shri Tanck has further stated that his Reporting Officer assessed him Willing and Systematic, able to take decision capable, person who can be relied upon and maintains cordial relation with superiors, colleagues and subordinates. In spite of all these positive attributes overall grading has been assessed as Average.
3. The Reporting Officer in his comments/observations on the representation of Shri Tanck has stated that Zonal DDG was the Reporting officer for regional Directors and in this regard the Reporting officer of Shri Tanck has furnished documentary evidence to establish the fact that he was the Reporting Officer contrary to the claim made by Shri Tanck. The Reporting officer in fact has stated that, Shri Tanck had himself submitted his self-appraisal for the relevant period to him for reporting. As regards the substantive issue of the remarks/observation on various attributes of the ACR for the period 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 and 1.4.2007 to 30.08.2007, the Reporting Officer has stated he had made his observation after due consideration of the capability/capacity of Shri Tanck and based on the work assigned and carried out by him.
4. The Reviewing Officer in his comments has also reiterated the stand of the Reporting Officer about his being the competent authority to report on the APAR of Shri Tanck and since, Shri Tanck himself had submitted his self appraisal to the DDG, Zonal Office, Jaipur, therefore, at this stage his contention that, DDG, Jaipur should not have written his ACR as Reporting Officer, does not hold good. The Reviewing Officer has further stated that he had gone through the assessment made by the Reporting Officer and agreed with his observations on various columns and he does not find any reason to disagree with Reporting Officer who was closely monitoring the functioning of Shri Tanck.
5. After going through the submission made by Shri Tanck and the facts made available by the Reporting and Reviewing Officer, the Competent Authority finds no merit in the claim of Shri Tanck that the officer who has made assessment of his ACR during the relevant period as Reporting Officer was not entitled to write his ACR where as he himself had submitted his self appraisal. On the substantive issue of upgradation of ACR no facts/ achievements have been adduced by Shri Tanck in support of his claim for upgradation of his APAR for the relevant reporting periods, except for the fact that his ACR for other periods bears grading of either Very Good or Outstanding which is his imagination and not supported with documents. Accordingly, Competent Authority has found no merit in his request for upgradation of APAR for the period 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 and 1.4.2007 to 30.08.2007.
sd/-
(D.K. Sharma) Under Secretary to the government of India Tel.No. 23347503 Shri P.S. Tanck, Director Tariff Commission M/o Commerce & Industry Udhyog Bhawan, N.Delhi-11.
5. We have heard Mr. Gupta, counsel representing the applicant, and with his assistance examined the records of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that Zonal DDO was not the reporting officer of the applicant and, therefore, the impugned ACRs of the applicant have to be treated as non est. The applicant raised this plea in his representation, which has been rejected. It is clear from reading of the impugned order that the Under Secretary to the Government of India, who disposed of the representation of the applicant, called for comments of both Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The reporting officer in his comments has stated that Zonal DDG was the reporting officer. It was observed by the Under Secretary in this regard that the reporting officer had furnished documentary evidence to establish that he was the reporting officer. The reporting officer also stated that the applicant himself submitted his self-appraisal for the relevant period before him for reporting. Even the reviewing officer in his comments has reiterated the stand of the reporting officer about his being the competent authority to report on the ACRs of the applicant. It is not in dispute that the applicant had himself submitted his self-appraisal to the Zonal DDG. There was no occasion for him to do so if the Zonal DDG was not his reporting officer. We find nothing wrong in the observation made by the Under Secretary rejecting the representation of the applicant that when the applicant had himself submitted his self-appraisal to DDG, Jaipur, his plea at this stage that the said authority was not his reporting officer would not hold good.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant also urged on the basis of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and Anr., (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 7, that before the reporting officer was to confirm an adverse opinion against the applicant, he should have shared the information with the applicant and confronted him with the same, and that had it been done so, if there was indeed any shortcomings in the work and conduct of the applicant, he might have improved, and inasmuch as, there was no information shared by the reporting officer with the applicant, the average reports recorded by the reporting and reviewing officers should be ignored. Primarily, we are of the view that sharing of information by the reporting officer with the officer reported upon would be when there is material with the reporting officer, or he has otherwise the information that the concerned officer is not conducting himself in a proper way, inasmuch as, either his integrity is in doubt or there are some serious allegations as regards his work and conduct. Only because in view of the reporting officer the officer reported upon is not good enough to be graded as Very Good or Outstanding, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel would not be applicable. Further, in the representation that the applicant filed against his below benchmark gradings, he did not mention that before a final report of Average came to be recorded against him the reporting officer had not shared any information with him for which he thought that the work and conduct of the applicant would be only average. Had he raised such a plea it would have been possible that the respondents may have come up with the information that the applicant was informed of his average performance. As regards the main issue of upgradation of the ACRs of the applicant, it has been mentioned by the Under Secretary that the applicant in support of his claim had adduced no facts/events except for the fact that his ACRs for other periods graded him either Very Good or Outstanding. It has been mentioned that the applicants Very Good or Outstanding credentials would be only his imagination as in support of the same he has brought no documents on record. Indeed, in the present OA the applicant has made a mention of his service record from 2000-01 to 2007-08, and as per which the reports of the applicant are either Very Good or Outstanding, but even now the concerned ACRs of the applicant grading him Outstanding or Very Good have not been brought on record. We are of the view that once in the impugned order it is clearly stated that the applicant has not substantiated his plea that his earlier and subsequent record was very good or outstanding, he ought to have rebutted it by placing relevant record with the OA.
8. Finding no merit in this Original Application, the same is dismissed in limine.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/