UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIKAS CHAND CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners challenge an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) dated 09/07/2015 allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) The respondent while working as a Director in the Forward Markets Commission, Mumbai filed OA before the Tribunal aggrieved by rejection of his representation against the below-benchmark gradings in his Annual Confidential Report (for short 'ACR') for the years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 and by denial of promotion to him as a consequence thereof. The Competent Authority by the impugned order dated 11/02/2011 informed the respondent that the final grading of endorsement 'Average' in the ACRs are retained. Before the Tribunal, the respondent had also impugned the order dated 12/09/2011 by which the petitioners had informed him that his request for review of decision for promotion could not be agreed to. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that for the period of 3 years when he was working as an Under Secretary in the Departmental of Atomic Energy from 15/03/2001, though the Reporting Officer had rated him as 'Very Good' in the ACRs of the years 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04, the Reviewing Officer downgraded his ACR to "Average". He was overlooked for promotion for the select list of 2006 in the DPC held on 22/01/2009 because of the below-benchmark grading. The respondent submitted several representations on 12/03/2009, 25/05/2009, 21/07/2009, 18/08/2009, 17/12/2009 and 07/01/2010. The respondent was promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary in the select list of 2009 by order dated 01/04/2010.

(3.) The DOPT on 13/04/2010 issued an Office Memorandum which required all departments to communicate grading below the benchmark in the ACRs for the period prior to 2008-09 and obtain representations from the affected officers and take appropriate decision on the representation in consultation with the Reporting and Reviewing Officer. Accordingly, by letter dated 22/06/2010, the respondent was communicated 3 ACRs for the period 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 The respondent submitted a representation on 28/07/2010 and in response to that the petitioners by order dated 11/02/2011 rejected the representation.