Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: DG CSIR in Sachin Mehrotra vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2022Matching Fragments
Hence the applicant has no case and so the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the ld counsels for the parties at length and perused all the pleadings and documents filed carefully.
5. The key issues which fall for consideration are (i) the legality of the entry ab initio on grounds of malafide, process delay, denial of opportunity, violation of CSIR guidelines, (ii) the legality of order DG CSIR dated 13/12/2019 rejecting the representation against the grant of entry, (iii) related issues with regards to upgrading of disputed entry to 'outstanding' and (iv) plurality of relief such as prayer for promotion.
Hence in light of the facts and as per law laid down by the Hon Apex Court, the assertion of the applicant with regards to malafide falls.
7. As regards the challenge to the order of DG CSIR on grounds of being non-speaking it would be relevant to examine relevant portions of same for which purpose the same are extracted below:
" ..Dated 13 12 2018 "With reference to the representation dated 09.09.2019 of Sh Sachin Mehrotra, SO (S&P), -CSIR-NBRI against the adverse remarks recorded and the Reporting Year 2016-2017 (03.08.2016 to 31.03.2017) OA no. 330 of 2020 Sachin Mehtrotra Vs. UOI &Ors. CAT Lucknow Bench and requesting to grading awarded to him by the Reporting and Reviewing Officer in his O-APAR for expunge all adverse remarks made by the Reporting and Reviewing Officer in his aforesaid O-APAR and upgrade his grading to 'Outstanding', he is hereby informed that his representation has been considered carefully by DG, CSIR who has passed the following orders:
*** *** *** "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." Thus, the citations by the applicant when read in detail and as submitted in the O.A. do not unfortunately help him in pleading for his case per facts therein and moreso in light of the citations contained in this judgement and order. 20.1 In the case at hand, the matter travelled upto the DG CSIR who rejected the representation of the applicant which had the benefit of remarks by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer before they were placed before the DG CSIR. To hold that even the DG CSIR was biased and blind to OA no. 330 of 2020 Sachin Mehtrotra Vs. UOI &Ors. CAT Lucknow Bench submissions by the applicant and only sided with the respondents - Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer is too much and would smack of a biased judicial view because under Article-14 of the constitution the applicant is as much entitled to be protected by it as the respondents wherever equal application of law would come into play. The pre- ponderance doctrine in Administrative law vis-à-vis Criminal law, would have us convince ourselves that all the 3 levels cannot stand united without reason against an employee and so one has to give weightage to the factum that the adverse remarks against the applicant were upheld not by the Reporting Officer in his comments on the representation following the communication of adverse remarks but the Reviewing Officer also commented on the same and all the remarks viz two of the concerned officers and the one by the applicant by way of representation were considered by the DG CSIR and only then the impugned order of passed. Thus, we cannot find fault with the instant remarks or the order therein.
21. It is to be further understood that as regards quashing the OAPR entries of the period 03/08/2016 to 31/03/2017 of the Reporting and the Reviewing officer, the same have been already dealt with by the statutory authority which is the DG CSIR vide the impugned order which is already upheld earlier in this judgement. Since no legal or factual error is noticed in OA no. 330 of 2020 Sachin Mehtrotra Vs. UOI &Ors. CAT Lucknow Bench the order of the DG CSIR, hence there is legal reason for this Tribunal to strike down the order of the DG CSIR which has finally decided the fate of the OAPR entry for the 2016-17 period stated in the O.A. Hence, there is no occasion to consider any amendment in the OAPR entries of 2016-17 after the order of the statutory authority has been found flawless on legal and factual grounds. The Tribunal cannot now step in as a 2nd appellate authority over and above the DG CSIR and decide as if in a 2nd review or appeal the order passed by the DG CSIR on 13/12/2019. Hence as no interference is warranted in the same, therefore, the question of any interference in what OAPR entry has been made with regards to 2016-17 becomes still born insofar as this Tribunal is concerned and therefore the alleged adverse entries against the applicant for the year 2016-17 stand and subsist there being no flaw in the same either in the process or the competent authority or on the issue of mala fideetc. This Tribunal is not the executive authority to sit on top of what exact decision the competent authorities take with regards to performance of any employee in the government. The key aspects seen by the court are the legality of the action taken which in the current case stands the legal test of process, competency of authority and alleged mala fideand so no further interference is called for and the issue of striking down the OAPR remarks of 2016-17 is settled against the OA no. 330 of 2020 Sachin Mehtrotra Vs. UOI &Ors. CAT Lucknow Bench applicant. The additional relief sought by the applicant for upgrading the 2016-17 OAPR entry to 'Outstanding' also therefore, falls to the ground.