UNION OF INDIA Vs. G.R. MEGHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India through the Secretary in its Department of Communication and Information Technology and two others have approached this court by way of present writ petition challenging order dated 16.04.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No.430/2011, whereby the Tribunal allowed the original application of respondent herein and set-aside order dated 01.10.2010 rejecting his representation against adverse remarks recorded in his ACR of the year 2007-08, with direction to petitioners herein to call for a review meeting of screening committee within two months to reassess suitability of respondent for the purpose of grant of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) and while doing so the committee shall exclude the ACR of the year 2007-08 and thereafter the petitioners to pass appropriate orders on the basis of recommendations of such review screening committee within a period of one month thereafter, with consequential benefits.

(2.) Respondent is a member of Indian Telecom Services Group 'A' and was, at relevant time, posted as Deputy General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sikar, under the office of General Manager Telecom, District Ajmer. The General Manager, Telecom District Ajmer was his reporting officer and the Chief General Manager Telecom, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, was the reviewing authority. For two periods from 13.05.2005 to 31.03.2006 and 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, the reporting officer graded the respondent as "very good", and reviewing authority endorsed the same, but thereafter for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, the reporting officer rated him only "good". Grievance of respondent was that despite there being no deficiency or inefficiency in his work performance, the reporting officer wrongfully rated him "good" in the ACR of the year 2007-08, instead of 'very good', as was given to him in his ACRs of previous two years i.e. 2005-06 and 2006-07. Respondent was never intimated of such lower grading nor issued any advisory to improve the work performance. His rating was down graded only for the purpose to deprive him of due promotion/placement to the cadre of SAG. The respondent produced before the Tribunal copies of ACRS for the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and asserted before the Tribunal that in the ACRs of the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 his performance has been rated as "very good". Reliance was placed on the DoP and T Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 containing instructions regarding communicating the below benchmark grading to the officer. The below benchmark grading for the year 2007- 08 of respondent was communicated to him and representation was sought. The downgrading of benchmark was thus communicated to respondent vide letter dated 13.05.2010 informing him that if he was not satisfied with the same he may submit representation through General Manager Telecom, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur. Respondent accordingly submitted representation on 19.06.2010 contending that neither he was informed of any shortcoming nor given sufficient time to improve any such deficiency so as to justify his downgrading of benchmark from "very good" to only "good". The averment of respondent that he worked under same reporting officer and reviewing authority between the years 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007; both of them rated his performance as "very good" in respect of years 2005-06 and years 2006-07, but now in year 2007-08 his work performance was rated as "good". How could it be possible? When in two previous years his work performance was rated as "very good", how could it be downgraded in subsequent year without intimating him or issuing any advisory to improve the work performance. Writ petitioner no.2 - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director, vide order dated 01.10.2010, rejected representation of respondent, which prompted him to file original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by impugned order, allowed original application in the terms indicated above.

(3.) Shri Rajdeepak Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for writ petitioners, argued that impugned order has been passed without considering material available on record as also provisions of law and submissions made by petitioners. Before considering the respondent for grant of NFU in SAG of ITS Group-A, below benchmark grading for the year 2007-08 was communicated him and in case of dissatisfaction therewith, he was asked to submit representation in pursuance of DoP &T Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010. Respondent made a representation and competent authority, after obtaining comments of reporting officer and reviewing authority in accordance with DOP and T OM dated 14.05.2009, and carefully examining representation of respondent as well as comments of reporting officer and reviewing authority on the same, decided to maintain the grading awarded by reporting officer and reviewing authority. Quality of work performance of any employee may differ during different periods even under same reporting officer/reviewing authority. It is only up to reporting officer and reviewing authority to judge his performance and give suitable grading.