LAWS(RAJ)-2014-11-2

UNION OF INDIA Vs. T.C. GUPTA

Decided On November 12, 2014
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
T.C. Gupta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsels appearing for the Union of India and Income Tax Department. Shri T.C. Gupta has appeared in person.

(2.) ALL the three writ petitions, arise out of an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. Nos. 296/2010 and 315/2011, decided by common order dated 30.5.2012, and the orders passed by the Tribunal on review applications No. 11/Jodhpur/2012 & 12/Jodhpur/2012. The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.5.2012, allowed original application No. 315/2011 to the limited extent, and rejected original application No. 296/2010. It thereafter, rejected both the review applications.

(3.) THE Tribunal considered the facts of the case, with reference to the Office Memorandum dated 16.2.2009 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (for short, DOP & T), and the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, : (2008) 8 SCC 725, and held that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the assessment recorded by the Reporting or the Reviewing Officers, in respect of any of the periods or broken periods of reporting in any ACRs of a government servant. The Tribunal can neither upgrade nor downgrade any grading, which has been awarded. There was no irregularity committed by the respondents, in respect of the rating of 'Good' given by the Reporting Officer, Additional DIT (CIB), Jodhpur to the applicant in his ACR format. Even if the belated downgrading of his rating as 'Below Average' by the Reviewing Officer on 20.10.2009 is discarded as being late, and being hit by the time period prescribed in the DOP & T Circular, his rating as 'Good' would still stand. For the two earlier broken periods of the same year, the ACRs were recorded in time, as the applicant had filled up and supplied only one ACR format, in respect of the full year, instead of three ACR formats for the three broken periods.