Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Dr. B.K. Sinha:

The applicant vide the instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, impugns the OM dated 25.08.2010 rejecting his representation against the below benchmark grading in his ACR/APAR for 2006-07 (1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007) and year 2007-08 (1.4.2007 to 30.8.2007). The applicant is further aggrieved with the grading Average assigned in the ACRs, which is below the benchmark prescribed.

2. The applicant seeks the following reliefs vide this OA:-

7. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit rebutting all the averments in the OA. The respondent submits that the applicant had requested for providing his ACRs for the years 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 (2006-07) and 1.4.2007 to 30.8.2007 (2007-08) vide his representation dated 24.4.2010 and the applicant was provided photocopies of ACRs for the period from 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 and 01.04.2007 to 30.8.2007 having below benchmark grading as Average vide Ministrys OM No.12011/4/2008-ACR (ISS), dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure R-2) for making representation against the entries and final gradings in these reports in terms of DoPTs OM dated 13.4.2010. The applicant submitted a representation dated 24.5.2010 against the below benchmark gradings in his APAR for the periods of 1.8.2006 to 31.03.2007 and 1.4.2007 to 30.08.2007. In his representation, the applicant claimed that he had been assessed by the DDG (Zone) Jaipur, who never supervised his work during period 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2007 and 1.4.2007 to 13.08.2007, arbitrarily gave him Average ACR grading while for other years, his performance was categorized as consistently as Very Good and Outstanding by the officers who directly supervised his work. The applicant had failed to submit any documentary proof for his claim. He has further stated that the reporting officer had assessed him willing and systematic officer; able to take decisions; capable person who could be relied upon and maintain cordial relations with superiors, colleagues and subordinates. The applicant laments that in spite of all these positive attributes, his overall grading has been assessed as Average. The representation of the applicant was processed and was forwarded to the respective reporting and reviewing officers for the comments, who duly offered their comments with documentary evidence. The reviewing officer had also gone through the assessment made by the reporting officer and agreed to the remark given by him in various columns of the ACRs and he did not find any reason to disagree with the reporting officer who was closely monitoring the functioning of the applicant. The applicant had earlier filed OA No. 825/2010 in the Tribunal in the matter of communication of below benchmark ACRs. In its order dated 12.07.2010, the Tribunal recorded that it was not disputed during the course of arguments that below benchmark ACRS have been communicated to the applicant during the pendency of the OA, against which the applicant had even made the representation. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered that his representation be decided within six weeks from the date of order. The representation of the applicant dated 24.5.2010 as well as the comments of the reporting and the reviewing officers thereon were placed before the competent authority, i.e., Secretary (Statistics & Programme Implementation) for deciding the representation of the applicant objectively in a quasi judicial manner in accordance with instructions contained in DoPTs OM dated 13.04.2010. After having examined the matter in detail, the competent authority did not find any merit in the claim of the applicant, as he himself had submitted his self-appraisal to the reporting officer. The competent authority further found that the claim of the applicant that his ACRs for the other years were either outstanding or very good not substantiated by facts. Accordingly, the competent authority, having found no merit in the claim of the applicant for upgradation of his ACR/APAR for the periods under consideration, rejected his representation and communicated this fact vide OM dated 25.8.2010.

12. The respondent in respect of Ground 5(x)-(xiii) in OA submits that on 1.9.2008, 127 posts of JAG of ISS were upgraded to SAG Level with the approval of Cabinet. Thereafter on 11.12.2009, 94 officers were found fit for promotion by DPC held in UPSC. The DPC considered ACRs for five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 in respect of all eligible officers in the feeder grade for assessment, including that of the applicant, who was assessed as unfit in terms of DoPT OM No.22011/3/2007-Estt(D) dated 18.2.2008, which stipulates that for promotion to the post in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.18400-22400, invariably the benchmark of Very Good is required in all ACRs of five years under consideration from the panel year 2008-09 onwards. The respondent also submits that the DPC was held strictly in accordance with the guidelines/instructions of DoPT. Further, DoPT instructions nowhere provide that the below benchmark grading in ACRs prior to 2008-09, should be communicated and that the same should be ignored if not communicated. However, subsequently in April, 2010, DoPT issued instructions to communicate all below benchmark entries of ACRs (re-named APARs). These instructions were also applicable to the future DPCs. It was in light of these instructions that all the below benchmark grading of the applicant were communicated to him vide letter dated 11.5.2010 and his representation was disposed of by the competent authority vide letter dated 25.8.2010 under the terms of the DoPT instructions contained in OM dated 13.4.2010. Hence, the DPC meeting held at UPSC assessed him along with other similarly placed officers based on communicated ACRs and again found him unfit.

Subject:Below Benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to the reporting period 2008-09 and objective consideration of representation by the competent authority against remarks in the APAR or for upgradatin of the final grading.
The undersigned is directed to say that prior to the reporting period 2008-09, only the adverse remarks in the ACRs had to be communicated to the concerned officer for representation, if any to be considered by the competent authority. The question of treating the grading in the ACR which is below the benchmark for next promotion has been considered in this Department and it has been decided that if an employee is to be considered for promotion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the period 2008-09 which would be reckonable for assessment of his fitness in such future DPCs contain final grading which are below the benchmark for his next promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC, the concerned employee will be given a copy of the relevant ACR for his representation, if any, within 15 days of such communication. It may be noted that only below benchmark ACR for the period relevant to promotion need be sent. There is no need to send below benchmark ACRs of other years.