IMPORTANT POINT
ACR – All entries in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within reasonable period so that he can make a representation for his upgradation despite there be no rule or government order to that effect.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 740 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal allowing the O.A. No. 430 of 2011 by directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess his suitability for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR of 2007-2008, Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-

2.1 The respondent herein, who belonged to the cadre of Indian Telecom Group A was sent on deputation to BSNL. He was posted as Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Sikar. His ACR grading was “Very Good” for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. However, for the year 2007-2008, his ACR grading was only “Good”. The below benchmark grading for the year 2007-2008 was communicated to him vide letter dated 13.05.2010. The respondent was informed that if he was not satisfied with the same, he may submit his representation to the General Manager, Telecom, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur. The respondent accordingly submitted a representation on 19.06.2010. It was the case on behalf of the respondent that he got ACR grading as “Very Good” for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, however, for the year 2007-2008, he got ACR grading as only “Good”, despite the fact that in all the three years, the reporting officer and the reviewing authority was same. It was also the case on behalf of the respondent that despite there being no deficiency or inefficiency in performance of his work, the Reviewing Officer erroneously rated him “Good” in the ACR of the year 2007-2008, instead of “Very Good”, as was given to him in ACRs of previous two years.

2.2 His representation came to be turned down/rejected vide communication/order dated 01.10.2010. That thereafter the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “DPC”) was held on 28.12.2010 to consider the grant of NFU in SAG. The respondent was not found eligible by the DPC on the ground that in the year 2007-2008, his ACR was “Good”. Therefore, the respondent preferred O.A. No. 430 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

2.3 Before the Tribunal, it was the case on behalf of the respondent that his grading as “Good” in the year 2007-2008 and rejection of his representation against the below benchmark was arbitrary and unjustified in as much as no shortcomings in his work during the period in question were ever brought to his notice.

2.4 The Tribunal opined that the remarks entered for the year 20072008 were clearly adverse, which warranted communication to the officer concerned within the time limit prescribed. This was to enable him to submit his representation but no such opportunity was given to the officer. Considering the fact that in the earlier two years his ACRs were found to be “Very Good” and the subsequent ACR for the year 2007-2008 though was by the same reporting officer, the same was “Good”, the same was arbitrary. The Tribunal hence set aside the rejection of the representation and directed to review the case of the respondent ignoring the below benchmark “Good” for the year 20072008 and to reconsider the case of the respondent accordingly.

2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Union of India and others preferred the writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, the Union of India and others have hence preferred the present appeal.

3. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has vehemently submitted that in the present case before