SANJAYA KU.MOHARANA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner, who is a retired Doctor of the Central Government Health Services has approached this Court challenging, inter alia, the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 404 of 2010 whereby and whereunder, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. and thereby confirmed the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare refusing to upgrade his ACRs for the period 2002 -03 and 2003 -04.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history. Since the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), when his juniors were promoted, he filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was registered as O.A. No. 427/2008. The said O.A. was disposed of on 19.12.2008 directing the opp. parties to convey the petitioner his ACRs for the years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 within a period of one month. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation against such ACRs. It was, inter alia, observed that if the petitioner succeeds in upgrading his aforesaid ACRs, he shall be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade by the review DPC. In M.A. 419/2009, as a last chance, the opp. parties were given 15 days' time to communicate to the petitioner the ACRs for the aforesaid period. But then, the opp. parties filed a writ application being W.P. (C) No. 9044 of 2009 before the High Court of Delhi. By order dated 19.05.2009, the said writ application was dismissed. On 24.08.2009, the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 were communicated to him. On 25.09.2009, he filed a representation. The said representation was rejected on 26.4.2010. While the matter stood thus, he retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 8.7.2010. Thereafter, he filed an O.A., being O.A. No. 404/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to quash the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide Annexure -7. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the opp. party no. 1 entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 1 of the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the opp. parties have received the representation dated 25.9.2009 of the petitioner for upgradation of his ACRs for the years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 from "Good" to Outstanding/very good. The said representation along with the photocopies of his ACRs for the aforesaid periods were sent to the concerned reporting and reviewing officers for their comments. However, the representation of the petitioner could not be sent to the reviewing officer for the year 2002 -03 as his whereabouts was not known after his retirement. For the period 2002 -03, it is stated that since the whereabouts of the reviewing officer was not known after retirement, his comments could not become available. So far as the period for the year 2003 -04 is concerned, it is stated by the reviewing officer in his comment that the ACRs of the petitioner was done as Good keeping in view the self appraisal of the officer and comments of the reporting officers and that he had also personally gone through the working of the officer and found that he was performing the routine duties and nothing extraordinary to his credit. Considering the representation of the petitioner in the light of the available records and comments of the reporting and reviewing officers, the ACRs of the petitioner was not upgraded. Accordingly, the decision of the competent authority was communicated to the petitioner on 26.4.2010.

(3.) LEARNED Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No. 404 of 2010 holding, inter alia, that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to interfere in the assessment/recording/grading given/made in the ACRs of an employee except when it is conclusively established that such remarks were recorded in violation of the statutory rules, tainted with malice or for that matter the authority who reported upon such remark/grading is not competent to do so. The Tribunal further observed that interfering in the grading/recording as a matter of routine by the Tribunal would tantamount to acting as an appellate authority of the authority competent to record the remarks. The Tribunal further held that except bald allegation of bias, no unimpeachable material had been produced by the petitioner in support of his allegation. Though a contention was raised by the petitioner that the bench mark very good was introduced vide Annexure -7 dated 8.2.2008, i.e., much after the DPC, the DPC ought not to have refrained from recommending the case of the petitioner for promotion due to lack of bench mark 'very good', but the same was negatived.