UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Ors. have challenged the order dated 13th October, 2009 passed in OA No. 588/2009 titled Sh. Ravinder Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. directing the petitioners to communicate to the respondent his ACRs which may be below bench mark and considered by the DCPs held in July, 2007 and April, 2008 and permitted the respondent to make a representation against such reports. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench further directed the petitioners that in case his ACRs are upgraded commensurating with the bench mark, then to held a review DPC and to consider the respondent for the post of Member, Central Water Commission. The respondent after his appointment in Central Water Engineering (Group-A) was promoted as Deputy Director/Executive Engineer and later on was promoted as Director/Superintending Engineer and was also promoted to the grade of Chief Engineer. The respondent had filed an OA under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 challenging downgrading of his ACRs for six years from 2001 to 2007 as null and void and that he be treated as very good in consonance with the bench mark and to promote the respondent along with his juniors from the date his immediate juniors were promoted.

(2.) The Tribunal, after considering the pleas and contentions of the parties and relying on (2008) 8 SCC 725 Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India had held that since the ACRs of the respondent for the period 2000- 2001 to 2006-2007 were below the bench mark of very good for promotion, the entries in his ACR became adverse entries as such entries eliminated promotion of the respondent and the respondent became entitled for intimation of the same.

(3.) While relying on Dev Dutt (Supra), it was held that an entry in the ACR, which adversely affects the promotion of an employee should be communicated to him, so as to afford him opportunity of making representation against it. Relying on the office memorandum dated 10- 11th September, 1987 in the said decision, it was held that it contemplates communication of adverse entries only and not "good" entry.