Union of India v. S.I. Baltej Singh

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. The Petitioner by way of the present writ petition impugns the order dated 5th December, 2000 passed in the Original Application No. 977/1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 2009:DHC:5209-DB

2. The Respondent herein was enrolled as a sub-inspector in the year

1981. While in service disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 23rd September, 1991, on the charges that the Respondent gave clearance to passengers against forged passports. Vide order dated 12th October, 1992 the disciplinary authority imposed a major penalty of reduction of pay by four stages. On revision the same was reduced to a censure on 30th October, 1996.

3. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the name of the Respondent herein was placed on the secret list of persons of doubtful integrity. The Respondent made representation to the Petitioners for inclusion of his name in the „F‟ list. However, by an order dated 3rd March, 1997 which the Respondent, herein, impugned before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Respondent‟s request regarding admission of his name to Promotion List „F‟ (Executive) was rejected.

4. The Respondent filed an Original Application No. 977/1998 inter alia challenging the order dated 3rd March, 1997 passed by the Petitioner. This application of the Respondent was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 5th December, 2000, following its decision in the case of Vijender Singh Vs. Union of India & others in O.A. No. 481/1997 rendered on 11th April, 1997. This is how the Petitioner is before us impugning the order dated 5th December, 2000.

5. The Petitioner in the writ petition has assailed the order of Tribunal dated 5th December, 2000 only to the extent it directs the Petitioner to treat the Annual Confidential Reports (in short ACRs) of the Respondent herein as „Good‟ instead of „Average‟. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Respondent‟s case for promotion was rejected primarily on two grounds, namely, indifferent service record and average ACRs which could not make a grade before the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short the DPC), as he had failed to achieve the bench mark of three good ACRs during the preceeding five years.

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that even if the name of the Respondent is removed from the Secret List and the punishment is reduced to censure, still the Respondent cannot be enlisted in list „F‟ for promotion to the post of Inspector as he does not have three good ACRs. It is also contended that the DPC is not guided by individual columns but by overall performance. It is also contended that to assess the suitability of the individual is the prerogative of the DPC and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the recommendation of the DPC.

7. The Tribunal on the basis of its earlier decision in the case of Vijender Singh Vs. Union of India, O.A. No. 481/1997 held that since there was no grading of „good‟ in the format of ACR the grading of “average” be treated as „good‟ and granted the same relief to the Respondent herein on 5.12.2000. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner herein that the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Vijender Singh Vs. Union of India (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the grading of „Good‟ existed in the ACR format

8. In the present case the DPC had assessed the Respondent‟s CRs and found that he did not have three „good‟ ACRs. The ACRs for the last 5 years were: “1. 1.4.89 to 31.3.90- Average

2. 1.4.90 to 16.8.90- Very Good 18.8.90 to 15.1.91- Good 16.1.91 to 31.1.91- Less than 90 days

3. 1.4.91 to 27.1.92- Average

4. 1.4.92 to 29.9.92- Average 30.9.92 to 31.3.93- Average