UNION OF INDIA Vs. A P SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 9. 1. 2007 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by which certain directions were given to the present petitioners, (Union of India in the Finance Ministry and Central Board of Direct Taxes and Member (Personnel), CBDT) to communicate the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The Tribunal further provided that the applicant before the Tribunal, i. e. the present respondent, should submit a representation within a fortnight of receipt of the remarks and the respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within two months of the receipt of the order and that if as a result of consideration of these representations, the ACR grading of the original applicant improves, the authorities shall convene a meeting of the review DPC within two months thereafter. The Tribunal also directed ignoring the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2002-03 as the same was recorded by only one Officer and, therefore, treated as incomplete.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the following facts leading to this petition :-

(3.) PURSUANT to the directions of the Tribunal, the respondent herein did make representations against down grading of his ACRs for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and the said representations have been accepted and the respondent is now given "very good" grading for both the above years. There is also no dispute about the fact that since no interim stay was granted against the directions of the Tribunal, the review DPC was convened and on account of the aforesaid two "very good" gradings in the respondent's ACRs for the relevant period the DPC has now found the respondent to be fit for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. The matter is, however, pending as the final decision has not yet been taken at the highest level. The fact remains that on account of down grading of the respondent from "very good" in the year 1999-2000 to "good" for years 2000-01 and 2001-02 which down grading was not communicated to the respondent, the respondent did suffer prejudice resulting into his supersession. As many as 26 persons were included in the panel by the DPC which met on 21. 7. 2004 and another panel of 38 persons was drawn when the DPC met on 25. 11. 2005.