Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)D.C.S. Negi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 2008
8. In the instant case, the DSC met on 5.6.2014 whereas the below benchmark ACR of the applicant for the year 2007-08 was purportedly forwarded by the Section Officer (A&E) of the Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi (respondent), vide his letter dated 4.6.2014, and the Director (E&A), NTIPRIT, Ghaziabad, vide his letter dated 19.6.2014, communicated the same to the applicant for making representation. Thus, it is found that before the applicant received the copy of the below benchmark ACR for the year 2007-08 on 19.6.2014, the DSC had already met on 5.6.2014 and considered the applicants case and kept its assessment in respect of the applicant in the sealed cover because of withholding of vigilance in his case. It does not transpire from the minutes of the DSC, copy of has been filed by the applicant along with his rejoinder reply, that the applicants below benchmark for the year 2007-08 and the ACRs of other eligible officers for the year 2007-08 were taken into account by the DSC. It has nowhere been laid down in the DoP&Ts O.M. dated 13.4.2010 (ibid) that the required below benchmark ACR for any period prior to the period 2008-09 is to be communicated to the concerned officer only a day or few days ahead of the date of meeting of the DPC/DSC which considers his/her case for promotion. The communication of the below benchmark ACR for the year 2007-08 to the applicant, purportedly in terms of the DoP&Ts OM dated 13.4.2010 (ibid), appears to be an eyewash. Thus, the approach made by the respondent cannot be said to be aboveboard. Coming to the grievance raised by the applicant in the present O.A., it transpires that the respondent has failed to consider and decide the applicants representation dated 20.6.2014 even though more than nine months have passed in the meantime. The respondent has not assigned any reason, far less justifiable, as to why the applicants representation still remains undecided. As the respondent is yet to consider the applicants representation dated 20.6.2014 and take appropriate decision, and the contentions raised in the said representation as well as in the O.A. being same, this Tribunal is not inclined to consider the same and express any opinion thereon at this stage.
1