Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The applicants case, briefly stated, is that he was recruited as Junior Intelligence Officer Grade-I following his selection by the Service Selection Commission on 15.01.1982. He was subsequently promoted as ACIO-Grade II in 1990 and ACIO Grade I in 2001. The applicant was subsequently transferred to Sangrur where he served under one A.K. Sharma, who acted as DCIO up to 31.03.2010 and subsequently under one VK Goel, DCIO. On 08.07.2010, the respondents issued a memo communicating the below benchmark Average ACRs for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 whereupon the applicant submitted his representation which had been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.11.2010. The applicant thereupon filed OA No. 4106/2010 before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2011 directing the respondents to deal with the representation of the applicant by a speaking and reasoned order. The respondents have, however, rejected the representation of the applicant vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2011 making reference to some of the earlier correspondences.

5. The respondents have further submitted that the applicant was posted as ACIO-I at Sangrur w.e.f. 5.1.2006, but it is denied that he discharged the duty of DCIO on the retirement of incumbent of that post. In fact, he was posted as outpost in-charge in the capacity of ACIO-I under the supervision of ACIO/AD Patiala.

6. The respondents have further submitted that cash rewards given to the officers do not justify the performance during the whole year as they are given in recognition of performance of particular tasks. The applicant had been given several instructions orally as well as in writing about his poor performance and for bypassing his superior officers with the advise to improve his performance and to consult his immediate superior officer DCIO Patiala before sending inputs of sensitive nature to SIB Patiala. He further failed to make sufficiently robust arrangement for manning the Sangrur office during his absence. In view of these facts, his representation for upgradation of the two ACRs, namely, 2006-07 and 2007-08 were rejected along with reasons Copies of the full ACRs and remarks of the different recording authorities were communicated to the applicant vide memo dated 08.06.2011, in compliance to the DoP&T OM dated 13.4.2010.

7. The respondents have denied the charges leveled against one SS Multani, DCIO, who had graded the applicant Average for the period 2008-09 and Good for the period 2009-10 on the ground that it was strictly in relation to his performance. In response to his representation dated 08.04.2011, the ACR for the period 2008-09 was upgraded as Very Good.

8. The applicant has also submitted rejoinder denying the averments made in the counter reply.

9. The applicant has relied upon the case on Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 146 to contend that any remarks not communicated as per law laid down in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, were to be ignored by the DPC while considering promotion.

15. We find from perusal of the order dated 21.10.2011 that there is an application of mind by the competent authority and the case has been dealt with in full. The competent authority has duly considered the representation, the materials available on record and found that the applicant had submitted incorrect facts in his representation that following the retirement of one AK Sharma, DCIO, Sangrur, he had held the charge of the DCIO. It is stated that the charge of the DCIO Sangrur was being held additionally by the DCIO Patiala. The said order also gives details of the documents which were consulted while considering the representation of the applicant and has listed out the irregularities and shortcomings of the applicant, including his poor performance of a casual contract handled by him, his negligence towards duty in not attending to his cell phone after office hours and not making necessary arrangements at the post while he was on station leave. The competent authority found that his conduct in bypassing his immediate superior authority in submitting reports is a grave lapse.