ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A)

1. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders/communications dated

10.04.2013,19.06.2012 and 29.03.2012 whereby the the representations filed against the below benchmark grading/adverse entries made in the ACR/APAR for the period from 09.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 (OA 399/2013) , from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 and from 01.4.2011 to

31.03.2012, (OA 400/2013) from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and from 01.04.2008 to 18.07.2008 (OA 401/2013) ,respectively, were rejected by the Appellate Authorities, the applicant filed separate OAs as shown in the brackets above with prayer to quash and set aside the impugned rejection orders and direct respondents to expunge the adverse remarks in the APAR of the above years.

2. Since question involved in these OAs is similar in nature and can be conveniently disposed of by a common order ,the same are being decided by this common order.

3. The facts of the case in brief for adjudication of the three OAs are as under:-

5 (OA No.290/00399/2013 & Two other OAs)

3.1 The applicant was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (C) in P&T, BWS (Group-A) in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 (Junior Time Scale). The applicant was promoted to the next higher grade (Senior Time Scale) i.e. Executive Engineer (C), in Chief Engineer (C), Telecom Bihar Zone, Patna w.e.f. 07.10.1997. Thereafter, the applicant on his option, was permanently absorbed in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000. After absorption in BSNL, the applicant was promoted to the next higher grade i.e. Junior Administrative Grade in the rank of Superintending Engineer (C) and took charge of the post of Superintending Engineer (C), BSNL Civil Circle, Jodhpur, on 22.10.2012.

3.2 As per facts of OA 399/2013 , the applicant’s final APAR/ACR for the year 2009-10 was forwarded to him vide letter dated 29.10.2010, wherein the reporting officer granted him high 8.27 numerical grading (equivalent to outstanding performance) for his working and other abilities in Part-2, on the basis of overall weightage given in Section A, B and C in Part-3 of the APAR. The Reviewing Officer, however, while making remarks in his APAR, did not agree with the assessment made by the Reporting Officer and had granted him below benchmark grading i.e. 3.78 numerical grading on the basis of overall weightage given in 6 (OA No.290/00399/2013 & Two other OAs) Section A, B and C in Part-3 of the report. Against that, the applicant submitted a representation dated 20.11.2010 (Annexure A/3) to the Appellate Authority explaining the facts and circumstances under which his ACRs were downgraded with malicious intentions by the Reviewing Officer. The applicant also pointed out various procedural lapses in recording the ACR and subsequent communication dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure A/4) . The DGM (Admn. & HR) vide order dated 10.04.2013 (Annexure A/1) , conveyed the rejection of the applicant’s representation against communication of below benchmark grading in APAR/ACR, whereby, the request for up-gradation of numerical grading and setting aside the remarks made by Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer did not find merit.

3.3 As per facts of OA 400/2013 , the applicant was communicated his final APAR/ACR grading for the year 2010-11 vide letter of Chief Engineer (C), BSNL Civil, CG Zone, Raipur, dated 06.08.2011 (Annexure A/2) , which disclosed that the reporting officer has made certain adverse remarks which were accepted by the reviewing officer. Against that the applicant submitted a representation dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure A/3) to the Appellate Authority i.e. Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur, explaining the facts and circumstances under which his ACRs were downgraded with malicious 7 (OA No.290/00399/2013 & Two other OAs) intentions by the Reviewing Officer. The applicant also pointed out various procedural lapses in recording of ACR. The AGM (Admn.