Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is submitted in the OA that both grant of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) and Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) were granted to the applicant on the basis of his ACRs/APARs. In this regard, the applicant further states that (OA No.3283/2016) his ACRS/APARs have either been Outstanding or Very Good since 2010, except for the period 01.04.2014 to 29.09.2014 and 30.09.2014 to 28.01.2015 which were graded as 'Good'.

4. On 21.03.2014, the Department of Personnel and Training, issued an Office Memorandum prescribing periodical review under FR 56. Para 5 of the said OM reads as under:-

5. The applicant contends that in the light of the above OM dated 21.03.2014, the action on part of the respondents, in compulsorily retiring the applicant under FR 56(j), is not only illegal but an arbitrary action, all the more for the reason that the applicant had been granted JAG and NFU in the years 2010 and 2014, respectively. Moreover, his ACRs/APARs were either Outstanding or Very Good since 2010, except for the period 01.04.2014 to 29.09.2014 and 30.09.2014 when they were graded as Good.

10. The respondents submit that the promotion/upgradation are granted only on the basis of ACRs/APARs whereas the exercise under FR 56(j) is based on the entire service records of the officer, including ACRs/APARs, personal file & service books of the employees. While arriving at the decision to retire the applicant under FR 56(j), his entire service records, including remarks of his controlling officer, ACRs/APARs during his entire service period of 26 years and his personal file have been duly considered by the Internal Committee as well as Review Committee. The applicant has himself stated in the O.A. that his ACRs/APARs for the period 01.04.2014 to 29.09.2014, his grading was 'Good' and for the period 30.09.2014 to 28.01.2015 was down-graded from 'Very Good' to "Good" by the Reviewing Officer. This fact, accompanied with the fact that he did not prefer any representation against these (OA No.3283/2016) APARs, clearly indicates that he has accepted steep fall in his efficiency. The respondents further submit that para 4 of DoP&T OM dated 11.09.2015 states that in the case of those officers who have been promoted during the last five years, the previous entries in the ACRs may be taken into account if the officer was promoted on the basis of seniority-cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit. The above stipulation is required to be read with the contention of the applicant that his APARs for the period 1.4.2014 to 29.9.2014, his grading was 'Good' and for the period 30.9.2014 to 28.1.2015 was down-graded from 'Very Good' to 'Good' by the Reviewing Officer which makes it clear that there was steep fall in the efficiency of the officer, which is well established by the remarks of his controlling officer. Since no representation against these two APARs were submitted by the applicant, it tantamounts to admitting this fact by the applicant himself. They further submit that the judgment/observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) need no comments as DoP&T had issued O.M. dated 11.09.2015 in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said case. The decision to retire the applicant is in consonance with the O.M. dated 11.09.2015 Issued by DoP&T. Therefore, action of the (OA No.3283/2016) respondents to retire the applicant is in public interest. Further, the contention of the applicant that in another case (OA 3072/2016) this Tribunal directed to maintain status quo with regard to the service of the applicant mainly on the ground that show cause notice was to be given before compulsory retirement, is wrong, misleading & misconceived and hence vehemently denied. In fact, as per the Deptt. of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum dated 23.10.1970 and 11.09.2015 and also judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Charan Singh vs State of Mysore (supra), it has been stipulated/held that no show cause notice need to be issued to any Government servant before a notice of retirement is issued to him under FR 56(j).

24. First, we propose to take a look at the contention of the applicant that his gradings in appraisal reports in the past where either very good or outstanding since 2010 except for certain period i.e. 01.04.2014 to 29.09.2014 and the second for 30.09.2014 28.01.2015 wherein the reporting officer had (OA No.3283/2016) given 'Very Good' to him but was downgraded by the reviewing officer to 'Good'. Since his gradings were an important criterion to evaluate his performance holistically, taking into account his performance in totality, this aspect requires proper consideration. The Representation Committee in response to this contention has noted that the ACRs/APARs of Shri Satbir Singh were duly considered by the Internal Committee and the Review Committee before arriving at the decision to retire him under FR 56(j). The importance of the APARs/ACRs has also been recognized by the Representation Committee itself in Para 5.1 of the Memorandum dated 08.09.2016 at Annexure 7 while considering the representation of the applicant, the Committee has also noted that promotions are based only on APARs/ACRs whereas the exercise under FR 56(j) is based on the entire service records and comments of the controlling officer of the officer concerned.