Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2. Averment has been made in the OA that on the recommendations of the Security Advisory Committee, CSIO and as per the requirement of the Scientist-In-Charge, Jaipur Centre, the applicant was temporarily transferred from CSIO Centre Chandigarh to CSIO Jaipur against a non-existent/non-sanctioned post of Security Officer and was asked to act as Security Officer and supervise the work of cleanliness & Guest House. The applicant submitted his ACR form for 2007-2008 and Part II regarding Self Appraisal was filled in as: Posted at CSIO, Jaipur. No work assigned. Duties and responsibilities of security officer were looked after by Sh. A.K. Sharma, S i/C, Jaipur himself. Vide OM dated 1.6.2010, the applicant was communicated adverse remarks from the Confidential Report for the period 2007-2008 and he represented against the same to respondent No. 2 requesting that the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period 2007-2008 be expunged. He also filed OA No. 337/CH/2012 in this regard titled H.S. Gill vs. UOI wherein through order dated 15.10.2012, the respondent No. 1 was directed to pass a detailed and reasoned speaking order within a period of two months. Vide impugned order dated 16.1.2013, respondent No. 1 expunged the adverse remarks mentioned at columns B-1 to B-4, B-6 (i) & (iii), B-7 and B-8 (Annexure A-1) but retained the adverse remarks mentioned at columns A-2, A-3, B(iv) and also the Average grading (Annexure A-5) which is below bench mark.
5. Arguments advanced by the applicant in person and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. Applicant reiterated the points taken in the OA and stressed that the below bench mark grading of Average would affect his promotion prospects adversely and since there is no material on record to justify the below bench mark remarks and grading in the ACR of 2007-2008, the remaining adverse entries below the bench mark level should also be expunged.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents took the preliminary objection in the OA that the DG, CSIR and the Director, CSIO, Chandigarh had been arrayed as respondents, but the institutions to which they belonged, had not been made respondents. He also stated that remarks in ACRs were recorded as per the subjective satisfaction of the recording officer, whether he was a reporting officer, reviewing officer or the accepting authority and there was no requirement that opportunity of hearing be afforded to a person before his ACR was recorded. Learned counsel stated that the order passed by the DG, CSIR on 16.1.2013, was a detailed one addressing all aspects of the matter and no bias or malafide has been alleged against the DG, CSIR. Hence, there was no ground to expunge the remarks recorded by the reporting officer which had been allowed to stand as per DG, CSIRs order dated 16.1.2013. Learned counsel also cited R.L. Butail Vs. UOI, 1970 S.L.R., 926 in support of his contentions where it has been held as follows:-
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is observed that the applicant was transferred from CSIO, Chandigarh, to CSIO Centre Jaipur, but he has claimed that he was not assigned any duties regarding Security Officer at this establishment since there was no post of Security Guard available there and he could not perform his supervisory duties as Security Officer. Moreover, the CSIO Centre, Jaipur, was on the verge of closure and there was only limited work and limited staff at this location. The relations between the applicant and the Scientist In-Charge Sh. A.K. Sharma appear to have been far from amicable and there could be some element of bias on the part of the Reporting Officer while recording the applicants ACR for 2007-2008. Most of the remarks in the ACR for the year have been expunged by respondent No. 1 while recording his order dated 16.1.2013. The remarks in A-2, A-3 and B(iv) are of a general nature and cannot be construed to be adverse, hence, there is no ground to interfere with the same. However, the overall grading of Average is decidedly below the bench mark and this was presumably based on the contents of the ACR before the remarks at B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (i) & (iii) and B-7 and B-8 were expunged. Since these remarks have been expunged the overall grading of Average must also be expunged.