Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The ratio decided in these judgments is that any representation against the adverse entries of ACR/APAR has to be decided by an authority higher than the authority who was made entries in the ACR/APAR. xxx xxx xxx xxx Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the various judgments cited above and the ratio settled by the Apex Court. It is crystal clear that the ratio decided by the Courts is that representation against adverse ACRS/APARs should be decided by the authority higher than who have recorded the ACR/APAR. Since in the applicant's case the representation was decided by the same authority who recorded his APAR in the capacity of General Manager, therefore, the representation has to be decided by the next higher authority i.e. the Member Engineer. We, therefore, dispose of this OA with a direction to the Member Engineer, Railway Board to decide the representation dated 09.12.2014 and 02.01.2015 submitted by the applicant against the APARs for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 on merits, giving detailed reasons. In case the Member Engineer takes a favourable view and upgrades these ACRS/APARS entries to 'bench mark level, the respondents shall consider the case of the applicant for promotion taking in view the new upgraded APARs. We set a time frame of 60 days from receipt of a certified copy of this order for Member Engineer to decide on the representation. No costs."
11. We are further fortified by the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Judgment dated 01.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 5649/2013 titled Shri Tarsem Kumar vs Union of India and Another, which read as under:
"16. On who would be the Competent Authority to decide the representation made by an officer against the adverse remarks, it would be relevant to reproduce the extracts of OM No. 21011/1/ 2014- Estt. (A) Dy. No. 959029 dated 13.02.2014. "Department of Personnel and Training (Estt (A) Desk-II Ref: Ministry of home Affairs Notes (ITBP) on pre- pages regarding competent authority to decide the representation given in respect of entries in the ACR/APAR. (F. No. I.17015/10/APAR CELL/Inst/2009).
5. The representation preferred against the entries in the ACR/APAR by the concerned officer should be decided by an authority superior to one who gave the entry ACR/APAR in both situation either the organisation is following two tier (Reporting and Reviewing) or three tier (Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Officer) system in writing of APAR.
JS (E) has seen.
12. In view of the above settled position of law, it is crystal clear that the representation against adverse ACRs/APARs should be decided by the authority higher than who have recorded the ACR/APAR. Since in the present case, the representation has been decided by the same authority, i.e. the Accepting Authority in the capacity of Director (Infrastructure), we are of the considered opinion that the applicant's representation ought to have been decided by the next higher/superior authority, i.e. the Managing Director, the Respondent No.1 herein.