ADCR evaluation must adhere to established guidelines, and uncommunicated reports can be contested, but previous grievances must be exhausted before seeking further relief.

JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi J.

CM-11209-CWP-2025

Present application has been filed for fixing the main writ petition to an early actual date of hearing.

Notice of the application to counsel for the respondents.

Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent-UPSC and accepts notice. She raises no objection for the grant of prayer as made in the present application.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken up for hearing today.

CWP-843-2018

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which, the claim of the petitioner that his representation against the ‘below bench mark’ ACR recorded for the year 2003-2004 has wrongly been rejected. The prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is that the review DPC dated 26.10.2012 conducted by the respondents by which the petitioner was declared unfit for the promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, should also be set-aside.

2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The petitioner joined as an Income Tax Officer (Group-A) on 14.07.1977. On 28.06.2001, the petitioner was promoted as Commissioner of Income Tax. While working on the said post, a charge-sheet came to be served upon him on 07.08.2002 in respect of the quasi judicial functions discharged by him in the year 1998. Thereafter, another charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 28.04.2003 for lapses committed by him in respect of certain assessments completed by the petitioner in the year 1995- 1996. Keeping in view the said facts, the petitioner was imposed upon with punishment upon proving of some of the allegations in the charge-sheet, which punishment order dated 13.04.2007 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application (O.A.) No. 688 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench).

4. After appreciating the facts, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) while passing order dated 06.08.2008 set-aside the punishment order dated 13.04.2007 by which, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reduction in pay by three stages till retirement.

5. With regard to the second charge-sheet dated 28.04.2003, the punishment of compulsorily retirement was imposed upon the petitioner on 01.04.2008 and against this order of punishment also, the petitioner availed a remedy by way of filing Original Application (O.A.) No. 1179 of 2008 before the Principal Bench, New Delhi. On 06.02.2009, even the said order imposing punishment of compulsorily retirement upon the petitioner was set- aside by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service.

6. As the petitioner was not being reinstated in service in pursuance to the order dated 06.02.2009, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (c) No. 9519 of 2009 for implementation of the order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) and vide order dated 18.04.2012 direction was given to the respondents to implement the said order passed by the Tribunal keeping in view the said fact, ultimately the petitioner was reinstated in service.

7. D