JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

[Hrishikesh Roy, J.]

Heard Mr. G Baishya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. MK Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has appeared as the Amicus Curiae on behalf of the respondent/applicant and we have heard him in the matter. We also note the presence of Ms. L Das, the learned Counsel, who is substituting for the engaged lawyer, Mr. M.K. Boro for the respondent.

2. The respondent has now retired but while he was serving in the Senior Administrative Grade in the establishment of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, was aspiring for promotion to the post of Principal Accountant General. But he was ignored and his juniors were promoted, on account of the adverse entry ‘good’ in the ACR of the applicant, for the years 2006-2007, 2005-2006 and 2004-2005, respectively. Thus the aggrieved aspirant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, herein after referred to as the “Tribunal”. It is relevant to mention that grading of ‘very good’ is the bench mark for promotion and thus the ‘good’ recorded in the concerned ACRs was the reason, for overlooking the applicant.

3. The Original Application No. 263/2010 was disposed of on 11.12.2012 (Annexure-11). The learned Tribunal examined the service records and found that in all the preceding years, the applicant was graded ‘very good’. Even for the concerned three years, the reporting officer gave positive report about the performance of the applicant but notwithstanding this, he was graded as ‘good’ and thus for want of the bench marking grade (very good), the officer was denied promotion.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the below bench mark grading was unreasonably recorded and thus the assessment failed the touchstone of Wednesbury principle propounded, in the case of Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd. Vs. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223. It was observed that due care was not taken in assessing the performance of the officer. Consequently the entry ‘good’ for the purpose of promotion for the concerned 3 (three) years was expunged and the respondents were directed to upgrade the same to ‘very good’, on the basis of the assessment report prepared by the reporting officer. Direction was thus issued for convening a Review Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the applicant for promotion to the post of Principal Accountant General grade w.e.f. the date on which, his immediate juniors were promoted.

5. Assailing the legality of the impugned verdict of the learned Tribunal, Mr. G Baishya, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by ordering upgradation of the ACR entry and should have left this exercise, to the supervisory authorities. He submits that even when a particular entry in the ACR is found to be unreasonably recorded, the Tribunal could have expunged that entry and then should have referred back the matter for recording of the appropriate entry against the officer. But in this case, the Tribunal not only expunged the below bench mark entry but also decided to upgrade the entry to ‘very good’ in the ACR and this could not have been done by the Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, Mr. MK Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submits that when the Tribunal had concluded that the ACR entry ‘good’ was unmerited and he deserved better grading and since this was the reason for the applicant being over looked for promotion, the specification of the deserving grading for the officer was the proper decision. The senior counsel submits that intervention by the High Court is not warranted since the responsibility for considering promotion through review DPC, was left to the competent authorities, by the learned Tribunal.

7. The remarks recorded in the ACR is intended for assessing the performance and also to consider further advancement of the employee in his service career. Hence accurate appraisal of performance is an important function of the Supervisory authorities and this can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document