UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI Vs. BHAGWAN DASS GARG & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting-aside of the order dated 17.3.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "CAT"), whereby, while partly allowing O.A.No.1312/CH/2012 filed by respondent No.1- Bhagwan Dass Garg, has issued direction that the Annual Confidential Reports for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 and 1.4.2008 to 20.8.2008 be ignored for consideration of respondent No.1 for future up gradation/promotion.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 is a direct recruit of India Telecom Services (ITS) of 1979 Batch. In 1992, he was promoted as Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) and in 1995 was granted Functional Selection Grade. Thereafter, in the year 2000, respondent No.1 was promoted as Senior Administrative Grade (SAG). During this period, his service record remained very good or outstanding except for the period 2002-03. In 2008, when respondent No.1 was working under respondent No.2-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, he became eligible for non-functional HAG w.e.f. July, 2012 and before considering him for the same, the petitioners conveyed the below bench mark ACR relating to the relevant period. Due to vindictive attitude of respondent No.4, below bench mark grading was given in two part ACRs for the period 1.1.2008 to 20.8.2008. He was also given below bench mark grading for the period 21.8.2008 to 9.12009 by the successor of respondent No.4 without application of mind and in violation of DOPT instructions.

(3.) On 12.2.2012 and 12.2012, respondent No.1 submitted three representations expressing his grievance and vide order dated 18.5.2012, the same were rejected. He sought information under Right to Information Act qua his ACR from July 1981 to December, 2007. Vide memo dated 4.9.2012, the information for the period 1995-96 to December, 2007 was supplied, which showed that except for the year 2001-02 and 2002-03, the ACRs of respondent No.1 remained 'Very Good' or 'Outstanding' and during these two years, his ACRs were 'Good'. Respondent No.2-BSNL, instead of rectifying the earlier irregularity committed in writing of the ACRS, again did the same thing by conveying two entries for the period from 1.4.2009 to 9.12.2009 (Good entry) and 10.12.2009 to 31.2010 (period too short to comment, having only 17 working days), against which respondent No.1 submitted representation dated 25.10.2012.