Adherence to statutory limitation is crucial, and the provisions for limitation should be interpreted strictly. The court emphasized that the point of limitation is a point of jurisdiction, and if an action is barred by limitation, the court cannot entertain it.

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Roy, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India challenging the impugned order dated July 27, 2015 (for short, the impugned order) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (for short, the Tribunal) in OA No. 77 of 2010 (Shri Rajabali Prasad versus Union of India & Ors.) (for short, the said Original Application) whereby the said Original Application was allowed by directing to grant the respondent promotion and the consequential benefits thereof.

2. The respondent was employed in the Income Tax department, on August 26, 1969 as a lower division clerk and was later re- designated as Stenographer Grade-III. He served the Union of India, the employer, for about 39 years. From time to time the respondent was promoted to various posts i.e. Inspector of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer etc. As an Income Tax Officer the respondent rendered his service on various posting and discharged his duties as such, including the Tax Recovery Officer (Judicial) etc. and ultimately promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Group-A) w.e.f. November 7, 2001 vide letter dated September 7, 2001. Till such period the respondent had served the Union of India in an uninterrupted and continuous manner.

3. After receiving the promotion as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondent served Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XII and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax XI till he was transferred as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-38. The respondent on transfer assumed the charge of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-38 w.e.f. July 2/3, 2003. While serving as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-38, Kolkata the Annual Confidential Report (for short, ACR) for the year 2003-04 for the period from July 2/3, 2003 to March 31, 2004 was reported by the then Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-38, as Reporting Officer and was reviewed by the Reviewing Officer the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XII. There were no adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2003-04 in the relevant columns as against resume of work done by the respondent. The ACR of the respondent always reflected to be 'good' and 'very good'. In the ACR's for other years namely 2005-06 or 2007-08 there were no adverse remarks. The ACR for the year 2008-09 was submitted after the retirement of the respondent on March 31, 2009. However, the ACR for the year 2004-05 of the respondent contained adverse remarks.

4. The respondent was communicated his adverse ACR through a letter dated June 30/July 5, 2005 issued by DCIT Headquarter (Administration). The respondent vide letter dated August 5, 2005 refuted such adverse remarks. The said objection of the respondent dated August 5, 2005 was sent to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-38 for comments. Two letters of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-38 dated January 5, 2005 and January 7, 2005 referred to in the said ACR were not communicated to the respondent for his reply and as such the respondent had no knowledge of the same and could not reply thereto, as alleged by the respondent.

5. The said objection of the respondent dated August 5, 2005 was considered and disposed of by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-VII vide his order dated October 27, 2005.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated October 27, 2005 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-VII, the respondent preferred an appeal dated November 18, 2005 before the competent authority of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. After 3 years the said competent authority rejected the said appeal of the respondent on December 15, 2008. Such rejection was conveyed to the respondent by a letter dated February 09, 2009, which was received by the respondent on February 10, 2009.

7. Being further aggrieved by the said decision of the competent authority dated December 15, 2008 the respondent made an appeal before the Hon'ble President of I