PRAVEEN KUMAR THAKUR Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Untrammeled with the rhetoric of Mr. Surojit Samanta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, while assailing the order of the tribunal where a substantial relief was granted in favour of his client, we are constrained to say that the writ petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order.

(2.) Taking a clue from the stray observations made in case of U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 363, it is submitted that the moment the adverse remark in the Annual Confidential Report is not communicated to the employee, the same should be ignored.

(3.) On the conspectus of such observation, it is submitted by Mr. Samanta that the tribunal order is infirm to the extent that relegating the matter to the authority for reconsideration would amount to a matter to be dealt with by caesar to a caesar's wife. According to him, it would be a futile exercise to remit the matter to the authority for reconsideration of the objections/representations filed by the writ petitioner against the remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report and invite the same result, which was achieved and made patent in the impugned communication.