UNION OF INDIA Vs. REKHA VISHNOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 28/11/2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 452/2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent/applicant and has, consequently, set aside the minutes of the DPC dtd. 18/2/2014 whereby, the respondent was not recommended for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) for the vacancy year 2011-12 for which she was being considered on the basis of her two ACRs for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 wherein, she had been graded as 'very good'. While allowing the O.A., the learned Tribunal has taken note of the fact that though the respondent's two ACRs for the relevant period, i.e., 2007-08 and 2008-09 had been upgraded by the competent authority to 'very good', the DPC had opined that the said up-gradation was erroneous and her grading was required to be taken as 'good', which grading was below the bench mark.

(2.) After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned Tribunal held that even though the DPC was entitled to make its own assessment of the ACRs of an employee at the time of considering him for promotion, however, the grading given by the competent authority cannot be altered without recording appropriate reasons which, in the present case, as per the Tribunal were found to be missing. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal has set aside the decision of the DPC and, consequently, directed the petitioners to conduct a review DPC for considering the respondent's case for promotion to the post of CCIT for the vacancy year 2011-12. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that no reasons for treating the respondent's ACR's as 'good' were provided by the DPC. By drawing our attention to the reasons given by the DPC, he submits that these reasons were sufficient to show as to why the DPC had decided to treat the two ACRs of the respondent as 'good' against the 'very good' grading given by the competent authority. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.