Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member-

As directed in OA No. 784 of 2010 dated 20.9.2010 the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram considered the representation of the  applicant, an Income Tax Inspector, against the adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 2006-07. Based on the clarification given by the reporting officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax decided that the entries in the ACR of the applicant would continue as advisory in nature (Annexure A4). The supplementary DPC which met on 22.2.2011 graded the applicant as fit for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer (ITO) as at Annexure A6. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi sought reconsideration of the recommendation of the DPC vide his letter dated 25.2.2011 at Annexure A7. The review supplementary DPC which met on 4th and 7th March, 2011 graded him as unfit for promotion to the post of ITO. The applicant was superseded and his juniors were promoted as ITO. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA for the following reliefs:-

7. The letter of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi dated 25.2.2011 is reproduced as under:-

"I have gone through the recommendation of the supplementary DPC convened under your Chairmanship on 22.2.2011. Thereafter, I have also called for the confidential reports of Shri.C.J.Babu, who has been found fit and recommended for appointment.

2. It appears that it is in view of the petition filed by Shri.C.J.Babu before the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequent  reconsideration of his rating in the confidential report for F.Y.2006-07 that the DPC recommended his promotion to the grade of ITO. I have called for and reviewed the confidential reports in his case. I find that for the F.Y.2008-09, the Reporting Officer, Kum.Vijayaprabha, ACIT, Circle - 1. Trivandrum had commented that "the official shows reluctance to work, urgent work relating to audit objections, giving effect to appeal orders, etc., was never promptly attended to, he left the office in the morning of 26.3.2009, leaving behind many official urgent works pending, including service of notices u/s.226(3). He was absent from duty from 26.6.2009 to 1.5.2009 without intimating me. The official appears to be more interested in film direction. He should show more interest in his work and learn to do his duties with a sense of responsibility." Further, against the column promptness in disposal, it is reported "INADEQUATE", relation with superiors is also considered "INADEQUATE". General observations regarding special ability, etc., the Reporting Officer had reported 'NIL'. However, the Reviewing Officer has remarked that the "classification of INADEQUATE in two columns are not correct". It is further remarked that "I understand that the Reporting Officer was not in good terms with the official. May be such strained relationship prompted the Reporting Officer to make such remarks". It is stated that the official complained about the Reporting Officer to the CCIT. Accordingly, he rated the official as "VERY GOOD".

10. The Committee may consider whether it is in the interests of public servant organizational discipline and image of the department that an official of the attributes that are reflected in the documents mentioned by me to be promoted.

11. Since the DPC held by you was a supplementary DPC and promotion at the lower ranks would depend on promotion to the level of ITO, it is suggested that an early meeting may be convened and decision taken, so that the vacancies consequentially arising can also be taken up for consideration for filling up in the financial year itself."

10. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant on two counts during the financial year 2009-2010 concluded with a warning by the CIT, Kochi. As warning is no punishment it cannot be taken into consideration by the departmental promotion committee for the purpose of promotion. Hence, the reliance of the 2nd respondent on the warning issued to the applicant is misplaced.

11. Annexure A appended to the minutes of the review meeting of the supplementary DPC held on 4th and 7th March, 2011 is reproduced as under:-