Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 14
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Pramod Ramjee Sahare – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 43 of 2014
Decided on: 06-01-2015
For the Petitioner: In-person.
For the Respondent:Malaya Kumar Chand, Prateek Tushan Mohanty, Advocates.
The court emphasized the importance of warning and counseling before recording adverse ACR remarks and highlighted the eligibility criteria for promotion to the SA Grade as per Railway Board letter No.2002/SCC/3/1, dated 03.06.2002.
Headnote:
ACR - Promotion Dispute - Railway Board letter No.2002/SCC/3/1, dated 03.06.2002 - The court discussed the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the promotion dispute to the Functional Senior Administrative Grade (SA Grade). The court highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, including the requirement for warning and counseling before recording adverse remarks, the consideration of ACRs by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and the eligibility criteria for promotion to the SA Grade.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged adverse entries in his ACR for 2006-07 and 2007-08 and sought promotion to the Functional Senior Administrative Grade (SA Grade). The Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the present Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was warned about the adverse remarks in the ACR for 2006-07 and that the DPC considered his performance for promotion. The court also noted the petitioner's failure to meet the eligibility criteria for promotion to the SA Grade.
Issues: Adverse ACR entries, warning requirement, DPC consideration, eligibility for promotion
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was warned about the adverse ACR remarks and that the DPC considered his performance for promotion. The petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria for promotion to the SA Grade.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 18.07.2013 passed in O.A. No. 3551/2011 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal disallowed his said original application. The Petitioner had sought to assail the adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and had sought a direction that these entries be ignored by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for consideration of his promotion to the Functional Senior Administrative Grade (SA Grade). The Tribunal, while rejecting the Petitioner’s plea, returned the finding that the respondents had placed sufficient material on record to indicate that he had been adequately cautioned prior to recording his ACRs and adequate opportunity had been extended to him for improvement. Only thereafter, the ACRs for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 had been recorded.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Divisional Medical Officer on 07.08.1980 in the Indian Railways with MBBS qualification. On 09.10.1987, the petitioner was promoted as a Divisional Medical Officer (DMO), and on 16.03.1992, he was promoted as Senior DMO and, thereafter, was elevated to Senior DMO Selection Grade on 06.06.2000. He retired on superannuation on 31.07.2011.
3. On 25.06.2007, adverse remarks in the ACR for the year ending 31.03.2007 were communicated to the petitioner by the General Manager (GM), Central Railway (C.Rly.), Mumbai vide letter dated 14.06.2007. The petitioner made a representation against the same to the GM on 17.07.2007. The aforesaid representation was turned down, which was communicated to the Petitioner vide letter no. CON.216/Adv/2006-07 dated 08.07.2008.
4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal dated 07.08.2008 to the Chairman Railway Board (CRB), New Delhi on the ground that there was no warning/displeasure/reprimand communicated to him during the period of 2006-07, and, thus, the recording of the Adverse ACR was not justified. The appeal was not accepted by the competent authority as per GM’s confidential letter dated 02.03.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred from Railway Hospital Nagpur to Ajni Health Unit on 21.01.2008.
5. The Petitioner was informed of the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year ending 31.03.2008 (i.e. 2007-08) vide GM’s confidential letter no. CON.216/Adv/2007-08 dated 26.08.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.10.2008, against the said ACR for the year 2007-08. The said representation was rejected by the GM, Central Railway vide letter dated 04.02.2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner appealed to the CRB, New Delhi on 05.03.2009 through Chief Medical Superintendent, Bhusaval (CMS-BSL). The appeal was also rejected by the competent authority on 05.08.2010.
6. On 18.09.2009, and again on 27.01.2010, the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, Railway Board, regarding the adverse remarks in ACR for the year 2006-07 and 2007-2008. He further requested for promotion to the SA Grade.
7. Aggrieved by the adverse remarks made in his ACRs, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 540/2010 before the CAT. The Tribunal vide Order dated 06.04.2010 directed the respondents to consider the appeal of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, a C.P. No. 487/2010 in O.A. No. 540/2010 was also filed, which was decided vide order dated 18.08.2010. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner was communicated the memorandum dated 01.12.2010, after consideration of his representation, wherein the respondent stated that there is no requirement for revision of the ACRs for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08.
8. The petitioner was denied appointment to officiate in the SA Grade. However, 35
