Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.3 Regarding downgradation of the applicant's ACR/APAR for the assessment year 2019-20, Mr. Chhibber submitted that this is an arbitrary action on the part of the State Government, which has been taken as a retaliatory measure since the applicant refused to toe the line of the higher echelons of the State. He further submitted that the Reviewing and Accepting Authorities are one and the same, and that the grading of the Reporting Officer has been discarded without proper explanation. The issue of downgradation of ACR/APAR has been challenged by the applicant, which is sub judice before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal.

5.1 The learned counsel denied that while handling the investigation, the applicant was time and again subjected to political pressure from the higher echelons of the State Government to conduct the investigations as per their instructions. He submitted that these allegations are absolutely baseless and without any substance. 5.2 It has been further denied that five-member Inquiry Committee was constituted vide order dated 06.11.2020 against the applicant qua suicide of Mr. Rahul Sharma as a retaliating measure. The learned counsel denied that ACR/APAR in question was maliciously and arbitrarily downgraded with adverse remarks for the assessment year 2019-20 as a retaliating measure. He, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the downgrading of ACR/APAR of the applicant inasmuch as the issue is sub judice before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal. Item No.25 5.3 Regarding lodging of three consecutive FIRs against the applicant, the learned counsel refrained from commenting on the merits of the matter, as the same are pending adjudication before a Criminal Court. He specifically denied that the applicant has not been provided with the complete set of documents in respect of the charge-sheet issued to him. He submitted that the disciplinary proceedings have been delayed at the instance of the applicant himself, as he is adopting delay tactics due to which appointment of Inquiry Officer is also getting delayed.

In this conspectus, we are of the opinion that the third FIR could not have been the basis to retire the applicant compulsorily. We, however, make it expressly clear that the above observations in respect of registration of three FIRs are made for the purpose of disposal of the present O.A. and the competent criminal court can decide the criminal case independently on its own merit.

Item No.25

31. So far as the ground relating to downgradation of ACR/APAR of the applicant for the assessment year 2019-20 is concerned, the applicant has alleged that the ACR/APAR for the year 2019-20 has been arbitrarily and adversely downgraded from 7.90 to 6.00, despite the stellar comments of the Reporting Authority that "Overall he is an asset to any organization he works in". On examining the contents of the aforementioned ACR/APAR, we find that the overall grading given by the Reporting Officer was 7.90, which has been reduced to 6.00 by the Reviewing/Accepting Authority. In the pen picture given by the Reporting Authority, the following had been recorded:-

36. In view of the above, it is felt that the downgradation of the overall performance from 7.90 to 6.00 has not been substantiated by any logical reasoning, which was required to be given by the Reviewing/Accepting Authority. Therefore, justification for this downgradation is conspicuous by its absence.

37. The applicant had made a representation against the down grading of ACR/APAR but his representation was not Item No.25 decided within limitation. Aggrieved by this inaction, the applicant had preferred O.A. No.02/2022 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal against the arbitrary action of down grading of the aforesaid ACR of the applicant. This O.A. is stated to be pending consideration before the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal.