Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.02 seconds)Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2008
In the above circumstances,
after communication of the entries made to the appellant and
subsequent rejection of the representation, now, the law laid
down in the cases of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (supra),
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others (supra),
and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, is of little help to the
present appellant for the reason that in the present case not
only the ACRs have been communicated to the appellant, his
representation too has been rejected.
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008
12. In the present case, below the bench mark entries in the ACR were
communicated to the petitioner - Y.P. Mittal before the DPC had
examined his case alongwith others within the zone of consideration
for grant of Non-Functional Upgradation. The petitioner cannot
have any grievance that he was not communicated below the bench
mark grading before his case was taken for consideration.
Pertinently, the petitioner had retired on 30th November, 2006,
before the decision and the judgment in the case of Dev Dutt (Supra)
was pronounced on 12th May, 2008.
Union Of India & Anr vs Major Bahadur Singh on 22 November, 2005
In Sukhdev Singh versus UOI & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 566,
reference was made to the earlier order by a bench of two Judges of
the Supreme Court granting leave dated 12.12.2006, who had prima
facie felt that the ratio of the decisions in U.P. Jal Nigam and
Others versus Prabhat Chandra Jain and Others, (1996) 2 SCC
363 and Union of India and Another versus Major Bahadur
Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368 were inconsistent. The issue was therefore
referred to a larger Bench.
Supra Dye Chem vs Union Of India on 1 January, 1800
In the above circumstances,
after communication of the entries made to the appellant and
subsequent rejection of the representation, now, the law laid
down in the cases of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (supra),
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others (supra),
and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, is of little help to the
present appellant for the reason that in the present case not
only the ACRs have been communicated to the appellant, his
representation too has been rejected.
Saroj Kumar vs U.O.I & Ors on 18 August, 2015
In this context, that we would like to refer to the recent judgment of
the Supreme Court in Saroj Kumar Vs. UOI in Civil Appeal
WP(C)No.11786-2015 Page 7 of 10
No.6081/2015 decided on 18th August, 2015, which makes reference
to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt, Sukhdev
Singh and Abhijit Ghosh (Supra). The grievance of the appellant in
this case was that the DPC held on 10th May, 2006 had ignored him
and had promoted his juniors, relying upon below the bench mark
ACRs, relating to the periods 1999 to 2000, 21st June, 2000 to 31st
March, 2001 and 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002, which could
not have been taken into consideration, for they were not
communicated to the petitioner. Saroj Kumar had partly succeeded
in the first round of litigation when the matter was remitted to the
authorities to communicate the said ACRs and consider Saroj
Kumar‟s representation. The second round followed when the
representation made by Saroj Kumar for up-gradation was rejected.
The second challenge by Suraj Kumar was also partly accepted with
an order of remit for fresh consideration of the representation.
Government had challenged the said order in the High Court, which
was disposed of observing that the down-grading was without any
material available on record and if there were complaints, the same
should have been mentioned when the down-grading entries were
recorded. Third round followed, when the review DPC rejected the
claim of Saroj Kumar. This time again Saroj Kumar succeeded
before the Tribunal, but the writ petition filed by the authorities was
allowed. The stand taken by the authorities before the High Court
was that the entries had been communicated after the first round of
litigation and therefore, there was no violation of the ratio in the
three decisions of the Supreme Court. Saroj Kumar thereupon
approached the Supreme Court, but did not succeed for the following
reasons:
Sukhdev Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 April, 2013
Decisions in
WP(C)No.11786-2015 Page 5 of 10
Sukhdev Singh and Abhijit Ghosh (Supra) would postulate that
the ACRs should be communicated to the concerned officer within a
reasonable period for non-communication of below the bench mark
entries in the ACR would be arbitrary and violative to Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
U.P. Jal Nigam & Others vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Others on 31 January, 1996
Clause (iii) of the O.M. required communication of the adverse
remarks in the confidential reports to the government servants, in
terms of their performance, qualities and potential. It was not
stipulated that below the bench mark ACR should be communicated
to the concerned employee. U.P. Jal Nigam (Supra) was also a case
relating to communication of adverse entries.
1