IMPORTANT POINT
In promotion cases, no judicial review of DPC proceedings, which are ordinarily conducted in accordance with the standing government instructions and Rules is warranted. The DPC enjoys full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW—Promotion—Post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise—Selection strictly on basis of merit—Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of candidate being considered by it—As per instructions contained in para 6.21 of DOPT Order No. 22011/5/86/Estt. D. dated 19-4-1981, as amended, the DPC is not required to be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but to make its own assessment on basis of entries in the CRs—No judicial review of DPC proceedings, which are ordinarily conducted in accordance with the standing government instructions and Rules is warranted.
       Held : As the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise is a post required to be filled up on selection made strictly on the basis of merit. No judicial review of DPC proceedings, which are ordinarily conducted in accordance with the standing government instructions and Rules is warranted. The norms and procedure for DPC are prescribed in O.M. dated 10.4.1989. It is thus seen that the decision taken by the appellants has been as per the instructions issued on the subject that only adverse entries and remarks are to be communicated and there is no provision to communicate the downgrading of ACR to a government employee. The decision of the Central Government is in strict accordance with the prevailing rules and government instructions. In the absence of any violation, the impugned order of the High Court while undertaking a judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is wholly unjustified. Since the matter of seniority has been well settled and this Court in a plethora of cases has held that the seniority/promotion granted on the strength of DPC selection should not be unsettled after a lapse of time. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there is no adverse remarks whatsoever against respondent No.1, the High Court ought not to have interfered with and passed the impugned direction. This apart, as per the instructions contained in para 6.21 of DOPT Order No.22011/5/86/Estt.D dated 19.4.1981, as amended, the DPC is not required to be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but to make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. The DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court, in our opinion, is liable to be set aside. (Para 27)
       (ii) SERVICE LAW—Promotion—Constitution of India—Article 226—Post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise—Respondent 1 joined the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service as a Grade A Officer on probation and was promoted as Assistant Collector of Central Excise after selection by the UPSC—Respondent 1 and other respondents were confirmed in Group A service—Respondent 1 was promoted as Deputy Collector of Central Excise on an adhoc basis in year 1983 and the said appointment was regularized as Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise—Government of India issued an order for the adhoc promotion of respondent 1 and proforma respondents to officiate in the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise—Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted for considering officers for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise—Respondent 1 represented against the seniority assigned to him—His claim that his ACRs for the year 1994-1995 had not been properly graded or considered by DPC, dismissed—However, promotions of these officers were made on the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise—On challenge, Tribunal dismissed application filed by the respondent—Whether High Court was justified in allowing writ petition filed by respondent—(No).
       Held : In our opinion, the judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference inasmuch as it followed the well settled dictum of service jurisprudence that there will ordinarily be no interference by the courts of law in the proceedings and recommendations of the DPC unless such DPC meetings are held illegally or in gross violation of the rules or there is mis-grading of confidential reports. In the present case, the DPC had made an overall assessment of all the relevant confidential reports of the eligible officers who were being considered. The DPC considered the remarks of the reviewing officers. There was clear application of mind. Respondent No.1 did fulfill the bench mark. Hence, the impugned direction of the High Court ought not to have been issued as the same will have the impact of causing utter confusion and chaos in the cadre of the Indian Revenue Service, Customs and Central Excise Service. (Para 26)
       (iii) SERVICE LAW—Confidential Reports of Employees—Government instructions for regulating recording of ACRs—These provide for only communication of adverse remarks in the ACRs—Where down grading of entries still meets the bench mark and it had been done by comparison—No reason recorded for such down grading—Merely because certain persons have been assessed by the DPC to be better than the respondent, did not imply that he should have been communicated his grading.(Para 25)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi is the first appellant in this appeal. The second appellant is the Department of Personnel and Training through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Pension, New Delhi. The first respondent is the contesting respondent. Respondent Nos. 2-5 and the first respondent joined the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service as a Grade A Officer on probation and was promoted as Assistant Collector of Central Excise after selection by the UPSC. Respondent No.1 and other respondents were confirmed in Group A service. In the order, the proforma respondents were placed higher in order of seniority. Thereupon respondent No.1 was promoted as Deputy Collector of Central Excise on an ad hoc basis in the year 1983 and the said appointment was regularized as Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, vide order dated 16.7.1985. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued an Office Order No. 187 of 1997 for the ad hoc promotion of respondent No.1 and proforma respondents to officiate in the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.

3. The Departmental Promotion Committee (for short “the DPC) was constituted for considering officers for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in April, 1997 and February, 1998. Respondent No.1 represented against the seniority assigned to him and he claimed that his ACR’s for the year 1994-1995 had not been properly graded or considered by the DPC and the lower grading given to him by the Reviewing Officer on one ACR was not proper and DPC ought to have considered the higher grading given by the reporting Officer.

4. The Office Order No. 11 of 1999 was issued on 12.1.1999 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance whereby promotions of these officers were made on the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. Office Memorandum No. F. No.Q-32012/10/97-AO-II Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue was issued whereby the representation of respondent No.1 was rejected for the following reasons stated as under:

“i)The recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission that for promotion to the Central Services, as in the case of IAS Officers, the inter-se seniority as fixed by the UPSC at initial entry into the service, should remain unaffected, is under consideration of the Govt. and a decision in this respect is likely to take time as these involve significant modifications in DPC guidelines. As the recommendations of the Pay Commission are yet to be accepted by the Govt., the existing instructions/guidelines of the Govt. pertaining to DPC are required to be followed.

ii)The provisions of para 6.2.1(e) of the DPC guidelines circulated by DOP&T vide their OM dated 10th April, 1989 were followed by the DPC which met in UPSC and considered the case of Sh. Goel for promotion to the grade of Commissioner. As such, it may not be appropriate to say that the DPC took into consideration the lower grading given to Shri Goel by the reviewing officer and not the higher grading given by the reporting officer.

iii)Although, the reviewing officer had slightly downgraded the overall grading on Shri Goel in the ACR for the year 1994-95 and the ACR also could not be sent to CVC for counter signature, it cannot be concluded that it had adverse impact on the findings of the DPC in the matter of his promotion to the grade of Commissioner. The DPC made its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the ACRs and overall grading of the reviewing /reporting officers was of no consequence.

iv)It is not for an individual officer to claim that his case is outstanding or otherwise as has been claimed by Shri Goel in his representation. It is for the DPC to make assessment on the officer after going through his service records. The mere grant of presidential Award cannot entitle an Officer to claim that he should be award

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 165

Cases Referred (7)