SATYENDRA JEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A substantive question of law that emerges for determination by this Court in these proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is whether the Union Public Service Commission (for brevity 'the UPSC') is justified to ignore the request of the Government of India for convening a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (for brevity 'the DPC'), particularly when it is based on additional material in favour of the Petitioner who was earlier rejected as unfit for promotion. The question has been raised by the Petitioner while challenging order dated 07.04.2003 passed by Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), which has dismissed the claim made by the Petitioner.

(2.) Few facts may first be set out so as to put the controversy in its proper perspective. The Petitioner was selected in the year 1980, after he succeeded in the Civil Service Examination taken by the UPSC. He was appointed as Assistant Collector in the Customs and Central Excise Group 'A' Service and was allocated to 1981 batch. It is undisputed that his service conditions are governed by the statutory rules known as Central Excise Service Group 'A' Rules 1987 (for brevity 'the 1987 Rules'). There was some inter se seniority dispute amongst the officers of the service, which reached upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court. On account of pendency of litigation, some ad hoc promotion at various levels in the hierarchy were made. The Petitioner was promoted as an ad hoc Joint Commissioner and then Additional Commissioner on ad hoc basis. In the month of March, 2002, a DPC was convened for making regular promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner. In respect of those who succeeded before the DPC, a notification dated 03.05.2002 was issued and a number of officers working on ad hoc basic were promoted as Joint Commissioner on regular basis. Unfortunately, the name of the Petitioner did not find place in the notification, although a person junior to him like Shri Mohinder Singh was granted regular promotion. The notification declared that the Petitioner was categorized as 'unfit' for promotion as he failed to achieve the Bench Mark 'Very Good' as laid down by various government policies and instructions.

(3.) The Petitioner made a detailed representation on 21.05.2002 (P-6), and claimed that there could be two basic reasons for denying the promotion to an officer. He suggested that the first reason could have been absence of vigilance clearance and the second reason could have been inability to reach the Bench Mark. In respect of first, the Petitioner claimed that throughout his service career of 20 years, he did not earn even a single adverse entry and no charge-sheet has ever been issued or pending against him and that his performance during the entire period has been appreciated at the highest level. He further claimed to have been decorated by Chairman's Commendation Committee for outstanding performance in 1985 and in 1990. The Petitioner pointed out that he served during the period of 1985 and 1990-91 in remote parts of the country like Buhl, Jamnagar and Probandhar in Gujrat and performed his duty risking his life, which was duly recognised with Chairman's Commendation Certificate. The Petitioner also pointed out that as Assistant Collector, he was rewarded with cash award of Rs. 5.50 lacs. In respect of second reason, the Petitioner pointed out that for the year 1990-91, it has been erroneously projected in the ACR of that year that he was absent from duty, which is factually incorrect. He clarified that he was not absent from duty. On the contrary, he did not work under any officer for more than 90 days, which is the minimum prescribed period for writing the ACR. The aforesaid mistake was rectified when his case for promotion as Deputy Commissioner was re-considered by the Review DPC. His seniority was also re-fixed and he was placed senior to Shri Mohinder Singh.