P.J. ANTONY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the applicant in O.A. No. 137/2008 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench). He was working in the Intergraded Fisheries Project (IFP) under the Ministry of Agriculture in the Union of India during the period from 1994 -98 which could be the subject matter of this writ petition. There were adverse confidential entries during that period. Those entries stood against him when his case was considered for grant of Annual Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) benefits. The grant of benefits got pushed by three years. He went to the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 910/2003. That was ordered directing that the Annual Confidential Remarks (ACR) entries for the period from 1994 -95 to 1997 -98 shall be communicated to him so that he would have an opportunity to reply to those adverse remarks. It appears that on account of re -organisation of its Departments and Institutions, the Ministry of Agriculture shifted petitioner's services from the third respondent establishment to the second respondent -Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training (CIFNET) which is another establishment under that Ministry. But the fact of the matter remains that IFP continued to be in existence as an establishment. ACR entries of 1994 -95 to 1997 -98 were communicated to the petitioner and he filed representations in answer to that. If we are to go by Annexure -A14 in Ext. P3, it shows that the Director of CIFNET had issued an order on 21/05/2007 saying that the employee's request to review the overall gradings and to expunge the adverse remarks could not be considered as the ACRs were reviewed by the authority concerned and no modifications were made in the ACRs. This view of the Director, CIFNET is carried over to Annexure -A17 in Ext. P3 whereby ad hoc Departmental Screening Committee (Group 'A') has held that the employee was eligible for the benefits of the ACP Scheme only from 01/04/2002. That was a direct consequence of the so -called ACR review and the rejection of the petitioner's representation. The fact of the matter remains that IFP continued as an institution under the Ministry of Agriculture and, therefore, if a superior reviewing authority had to consider the ACR entries of the employee during his tenure at IFP, that could have been done only by the Director, IFP and not by the Director, CIFNET merely on the plea that the superior officers of the employee and even the employee have, with the passage of time, been shifted from IFP to CIFNET. In this view of the matter, we cannot but hold that the representations, if any, of the employee, as against the adverse ACR entries for the years 1994 -95 to 1997 -98, ought to have been considered by the Director of IFP. This conclusion cannot now be excluded because even otherwise, ex facie Annexure -A14 in Ext. P3, there is no reason stated for the rejection of the petitioner's representation against ACR entries. It may not be necessary that elaborate reasons have to be stated while considering all the representations by the competent authority, but due application of mind by the authority has to be reflected in the decision and in the communication of the decision rejecting the representations against ACR. This is just not there in Annexure -A14 in Ext. P3. That error has led to the issuance of Annexure -A17 in Ext. P3 as well.