The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's entitlement to promotion was impacted by the pending disciplinary proceedings and poor ACR grading, and the practice of communicating ACRs as per DOPT's circular in 2009 and 2010. The court emphasized the absence of fault on the part of the respondents in not communicating ACRs grading prior to the issuance of orders.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner approached this Court with the following prayers.

a) For quashing the order dated 13.2.2017 passed in O.A No.051/00217/2015 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, Circuit Court at Ranchi; whereby the Original Application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(ii) For a direction upon the respondents to grant the promotion to the petitioner to the post of Post Master General (SAG) with effect from 2007 i.e., from the date of the entitlement of promotion of the petitioner to the said post along with the consequential benefits by ignoring the entries made in the ACR communicated to the petitioner on 29.6.2011 and 28.09.2011 as the same was not communicated to the petitioner within the reasonable period of time.

(iii) For a direction upon the respondents to grant the promotion to the petitioner to the post of Chief Post Master General with effect from 2012 i.e., from the date when the batch mates of the petitioner have been promoted to the said post along with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief fact of the case as revealed in the instant writ application is that the petitioner, a member of Indian Postal Services, 1984 Batch while he was posted at Kolkata, was served with a charge-memo on 5.9.2003 and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, which subsequently culminated into exoneration of the petitioner on 30.9.2010. The petitioner was due for his promotion in the year 2007 for the post of Postmaster General (SAG) but since the departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner, his case was put under ‘sealed cover’ by the DPC which was held on 5.2.2007.

Since the petitioner was exonerated from his Departmental proceeding on 30.9.2010, he filed a representation for granting him promotion to the post of Postmaster General (SAG) w.e.f. 2007, the date on which he was entitled for his promotion to the said post. Surprisingly, respondent authorities issued a letter dated 29.6.2011 to the petitioner asking him to submit his representation within fifteen days against his ACR for the period 1.4.2004 to 11.7.2004; 12.7.2004 to 31.3.2005 and for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The respondent authorities yet again issued another letter to the petitioner on 28.9.2011 for submitting his representation within 15 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Postmaster General could not be granted to him on 12.1.2011 and 10.6.2011, he submitted representation dated 10.6.2011 before the departmental authority explaining his grievances and requested for granting him promotion due to him along with his batch mates from the year 2007 and also relied on the notification dated 11.5.1990 issued by the DOPT which specifically stipulates the guidelines that if the remarks has been recorded in any of the CRs pertaining to three immediately preceding years prior to the year in which the DPC is held, the Cadre Controlling Authority concerned shall communicate the adverse remarks to the officers concerned so that he may have an opportunity to make a representation against the same.

He further submitted that it is well settled law that no adverse entry made in the character roll of the person can be utilized against him unless the same is communicated.

Recently on 23.2.2017, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Postmaster General (SAG) and is presently working in the said post at Varanasi Region, Varanasi (U.P.).

4. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the persons junior to the petitioner have already been granted promotion and are working on the post of Chief Postmaster General. For grant of his promotions, the petitioner moved before the learned CAT, Patna Bench, Circuit Court at Ranchi. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 13.2.2017 (Annexure-5).

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India submits that the existing practice of communi