UNION OF INDIA Vs. RASIKA CHAUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'C.A.T.') issuing the respondent/petitioner herein, directions that she ought to be considered for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) in the Defence Accounts Service, in 1995. The C.A.T., by the impugned order, allowed the petition and issued the directions sought for; it held that a review DPC was warranted on the basis of the established facts and circumstances.

(2.) The respondent (hereafter referred to as 'applicant') is a 1986 batch Defence Accounts Service official. At the relevant point of time, i.e., in 1995, her case for consideration for promotion to the JAG was considered along with other eligible officers. She was assessed as 'Very Good'; the others were reported to be 'Outstanding'. Consequently, her name was placed at Sl. No.5 in the panel. The applicant stated, during the course of proceedings, before the C.A.T. that she had accessed the ACR gradings for the relevant year 1991-92 and 1993-94 by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On the basis of those replies given to her queries, which were to the effect that there was a drop in her performance at the relevant time, she made representations to the higher officer who had recorded the ACRs.

(3.) Her complaint was that the Reviewing and Accepting Authorities had downgraded the ACRs from 'Outstanding' to 'Very Good'. It was also her case that for one year, the ACR was declared to be non est. In view of these facts - which apparently had not been communicated to her, at the relevant time, - she made representations to the higher authorities which accepted the appeal, remedied the shortcomings and restored the ACRs which meant that the Reporting Officer's observations of 'Outstanding' prevailed. For the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995, the ACR was declared non est. On the basis of further representations, DPC was held again. This time too, the petitioner was not given any relief. As regards the period declared non est in line with prevailing instructions, DPC considered the performance of the year 1989-90. As regards the other period for which the ACR had been restored, the DPC was of the view that since this area was not covered by any instructions issued by the DoPT, no relief could be given to her despite restoration of the ACR by the competent authority.