Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. That this Honble Tribunal may quash the downgraded entry of the reviewing officers for the year 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08.
8. That this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order dated 28.09.2010 by which a NO APAR certificate was placed on record even though the self appraisal was submitted within time.
9. Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant is a serving Chief Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as CCIT] since January 1, 2012. As stated earlier, the instant OA arises from the orders dated 20.03.2013, 25.04.2013 and 28.09.2010 whereby the representations of the applicant against the grading awarded in his ACRs/APARs were rejected by the competent authority without providing valid reasons for the same, and the order dated 28.09.2010 was allowed to stand as it was. The applicant further submits that the Revenue Secretary had upgraded ACRs/APARs of three out of twelve officers, who had submitted their representations, without having provided a clear rational on basis of which this distinction had been made. The applicant submits that he had been rated Very Good and Excellent from the years 2000 to 2012 and also received numerous cash rewards during his tenure as CIT from the Department for his outstanding work. The applicant has also authored a book titled Access 97/2000 Database Development Outside VBA (ISBN 1556228228) published by a reputed publisher from USA. He had been further selected to represent the Department in a number of conferences outside and had received cash rewards in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007, instances of which have been provided by him in Annexure P-2. The applicant on account of his outstanding performance was included in the zone of consideration for the post of Member, CBDT and was informed vide communication dated 30.11.2012 enclosing the ACRs from 2001-02 to 2008-09 enabling him to make representation, if any. The case of the applicant is that the ACRs for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were not reported upon in time thereby depriving him of his right of review by superior officers and while the ACRs/APARs for the year 2008-09 was not reported upon, it was treated as NO APAR period. The ACRs/APARs for the period 2004-05 and 2005-06 had been downgraded without assigning any reasons.

4. The applicant further contends that he had submitted his resume/self-appraisal within the stipulated period. The applicant has also submitted a copy of his communication dated 22.05.2009 whereby he had submitted his resume/self-appraisal for the period 2008-09 to the reporting officer and the same appears to have been forwarded by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs.) acting on behalf of the CCIT to the Member, CBDT on 18.06.2009. On 07.06.2010, the Commissioner (Vig.), CBDT directed all CCITs that one Shaikh Naimuddin, IRS [formerly Member (P&V), CBDT] had superannuated on 31.05.2010 and hence all APARs for the years 2009-10 which had to be reported or reviewed were to be sent to the Department of Revenue by 20.06.2010. Pursuant to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt versus Union of India [2008 (8) SCC 725), the Department decided to communicate the ACRs for last ten years to the applicant vide communication dated 06.01.2010 and to provide him an opportunity to make representations against the grading of the ACRs/APARs. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his representations against ACRs/APARs to the competent authority i.e. the Secretary, Department of Revenue vide his communication dated 19.12.2012 [Annexure P-8 (Colly.)]. In this document the applicant has represented against the ACRs/APARs for the period from 2001-02 to 2008-09. He has also enclosed copies of documents regarding publication of books, letters sanctioning cash rewards, letters of appreciation issued by CCIT, Ghaziabad and others. These representations of the applicant have been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 01.04.2013, details whereof have been given in the following Chart:-

5. In respect of ACR/APAR for the period 2008-09, it was communicated that the APAR grading was retained as Very Good. However, subsequently the respondents vide their letter bearing No. A-28011/03/2012-Per/HQ dated 25.04.2013 cancelled the earlier order dated 01.04.2013 and directed the APAR/ACR for the period 2008-09 to be treated as NO APAR period. There is also an order from the respondents to indicate that despite best efforts, the APAR/ACR for the period 2008-09 of the applicant could not be obtained from the reporting/reviewing officer/cadre controlling authority and in view of this the period was directed to be treated as NO APAR period. Against these orders, the applicant has come before this Tribunal on the following grounds:-

(i) In terms of OM dated 16.06.2010 (page 222 of the paper book) the Secretary of Revenue is not the appropriate competent authority. It is the Selection Committee which is authorized to take appropriate decision on the representations against ACRs/APARs.
(ii) There is non-application of mind as is evident from the APAR/ACR period 2008-09 that the impugned orders were received separately in respect of each of the ACRs vide letter dated 01.04.2013 which are cryptic for the simple reason that without having any resume/self-appraisal for the period 2008-09 on record, the respondents had rejected the representation of the applicant maintaining the grading to be retained as Very Good. When the applicant represented in relation to ACR for the year 2008-09 as his representation was rejected in terms of the order dated 01.04.2013, the same was not even considered by the competent authority and the file was dealt with only at the level of the Deputy Secretary. The applicant has enclosed the relevant notings at page 218 of the paper book. This shows a complete lack of application of mind. Moreover, the nature of the impugned orders are cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned. In fact, the Revenue Secretary has not acted in a quasi judicial capacity as required under DOP&T OMs dated 13.04.2010, 19.05.201 and 31.01.2014.