SANGRAM KESHARI MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is an officer of Indian Administrative Service of 1985 batch belonging to Orissa Cadre has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.782 of 2005.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that some time in 2005 opp.party No.1 called upon the opp.party No.2 to forward the Annual Confidential Reports (in short, 'the A.C.Rs) of 1985 I.A.S. Officers for consideration of their case for empanelment as Joint Secretary to Government of India, but although the A.C.Rs of opp.parties 3 to 6, who are also I.A.S. Officers of 1985 batch of Orissa Cadre and junior to him, were forwarded his A.C.Rs. for the years 1992 -93, 1993 -94, 1995 -96, 2000 -2001, 2001 -02, 2002 -03 and 2004 -05 were not forwarded in spite of request and personal approach. According to the petitioner, his A.C.Rs. were withheld by the opp.party No.2 with mala fide intention because while working as Commissioner of Consolidation he detected a scam involving hundreds of acres of land near Bhubaneswar which adversely affected some influential persons. The petitioner alleges that in spite of his outstanding career, for the withholding of the A.C.Rs by opp.party No.2, his case could not be considered by the opp.party No.1 for empanelment as Joint Secretary to Govt. of India. Since the opp.party No.2 took a discriminatory attitude towards him and in spite of all approach did not forwarded the A.C.Rs.to opp.party No.1, he had to file O.A. No.782 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench alleging violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by opp.party No.2 and seeking a direction to opp.party No.2 to forward this A.C.Rs and commendation letters etc.to opp.party No.1 at the earliest for consideration for his empanelment as Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, but learned Central administrative Tribunal by order dated 30.9.2005 disposed of the said O.A. with observation that the petition is premature and not maintainable as the same was filed without exhausting the departmental remedies and without having any access to the order of the Govt. of India under which opp.party No.2 had been called upon to nominate the names of the officers for empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary. The Tribunal, however, directed the petitioner to file representation before the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e. the Chief Secretary, Orissa disclosing his willingness to be considered for empanelment under the Central Staffing Scheme within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and also directed the Cadre Controlling Authority that upon such representation he shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the representation after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the preset writ petition for quashing of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and for issuing a direction to the opp.party No.2 to forward all required papers including all pending A.C.Rs. to opp.party No.1 and for a direction to opposite party No.1 to consider the petitioners case along with other IAS Officers of 1985 batch empanelled as Joint Secretary in 2005 giving due seniority to the petitioner and to ignore the adverse entries as communicated to the petitioner on 04.05.2006.

(3.) OPP .Party No.1 while supporting the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and denying the allegations of mala fide and prejudicial attitude of the opp.parties mentions that opp.party No.2 had actually sent to opp.party No.1 either the Confidential Report or No Report Certificate in respect of the petitioner for the periods i.e., 1.4.1993 to 10.8.1993; 11.8.1993 to 31.3.1994; 5.6.1995 to 12.10.1995; 2001 -2002 and 8.12.2002 to 31.10.2003, and the same were received by the opp.party No.1. But the confidential reports in respect of the petitioner for the periods 1992 -93, 13.10.1995 to 31.4.1996, 2000 -2001 and 01.4.2002 to 7.12.2002 were not received. It is also mentioned in the counter that the name of the petitioner was considered for empanelment as Joint Secretary at the Centre along with other officers of his batch, but he was not found suitable for empanelment and that his case has been kept for consideration on review after a period of two years when two more additional A.C.Rs on his performance are received.