ASHOK KUMAR ANEJA S/O SHRI KUNDAN LAL ANEJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is an IRS officer of 1973 batch. During the time of filing the OA, he was working as Commissioner of Income -tax, Appeals, Thiruvananthapuram. The next promotional post, which might have been available to him, is that of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.

(2.) IN September, 2006, a DPC had been convened. It is averred that later on, the applicant came to know that his name had not been recommended but some of his juniors had been considered for promotion as Chief Commissioners. As disclosed in the application here, he came to understand that his ACR in respect of the years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 showed him as 'Good' although in the previous years he had been awarded 'Very Good'. The DPC had taken into consideration the ACRs of immediate preceding five years, of all eligibles, and had adopted a criteria of four 'Very Good' gradings for recommending a candidate as fit for promotion. The entries as above, which downgraded him, saw to it, that he was sidelined. The submissions of the applicant were that such entries had been made out of prejudice and subtle malice, and since only now that it has been brought to his knowledge; it required to be ignored altogether. In respect of 2003 -04, the entry had not been subjected to scrutiny by the Reviewing Officer also, and in any case, it ought not have been taken note of.

(3.) THE question whether the entry 'Good' became an adverse remark vis   -vis the applicant's records, is the issue to be examined as of now. During the course of the arguments, it had been submitted that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA 673/2004 had almost in identical circumstances taken a stand that since such an entry requires to be considered as an adverse entry, it was liable to be brought to the attention of the Government officer. If this downgrading operated as an adverse entry, necessarily it could have been put into use only if the factual position was made known to the incumbent. It is pointed out that the above view has been taken by the Division Bench, on 09.01.2007, distinguishing three Full Bench judgments of the Tribunal, which had earlier taken a contrary view. V. Pallam Raju v. Union of India and Ors. AT Full Bench Judgments 1994 -96, page 148, Manik Chand v. Union of India and Ors. ATJ 2002 (3) 268 and A.K. Dawar v. Union of India and Ors. OA 555/2001 and connected cases, decided on 16.4.2004).