O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J):

The applicant herein joined Central Public Works Department as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on 10.06.1983 and got promotion as Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer in the years 1988 and 2000, respectively. In the year 2005, in terms of the order no.13011/8/2001-AV-III dated 13.06.2005, a penalty of withholding of next increment of pay for a period of three years without cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Thus, when on 31.08.2012 he was considered for promotion against the vacancy of the year 2011-12, his ACR for the period 2005-06 was downgraded by the Selection Committee and as a result he was declared unfit for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. In the wake, the applicant filed the present Original Application, praying therein:-

“A. Direct the respondents to convene a Review DPC qua the applicant with reference to the promotion order dated 06.02.2013 and grant him promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 06.02.2013 instead of 11.12.2013 alongwith all consequential benefits;

B. Pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in terms of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) OM no.22011/4/2007-Estt (D) dated 28.04.2014, the down gradation of ACR from one level in consideration of an employee for his promotion may not be legally sustainable and thus the UPSC was not justified in downgrading the ACR of the applicant for the year 2005-06, while considering him for his promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. Further she relied upon the judgment of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in Sri M.Thangamuthu Vs. UOI and Ors (OA 353/2011).

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that in terms of the note issued by DOP&T, for all promotions where the DPC meets under the aegis of the Commission, for the penalty awarded before the last assessment year but during the assessment matrix, the grading for the year in which penalty was imposed should be lowered by one level. He further relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Tribunal in Ms. Ranju Prasad Vs. Union of India and Ors (OA 2724/2010).

3. We heard counsels for parties and perused the record. In terms of O.M.No.22011/5/86-Estt (D) dated 10.04.1989 as amended by O.M. No.22011/5/91-Estt (D) dated 27.03.1977, the DoP&T has laid down detailed guidelines on DPC. The DPC notes down the grading in ACRs and is at large to make its own grading with reference to the remarks against various attributes and parameters in CRs. Besides, while considering suitability of a candidate for promotion, the Committee is also expected to take into account the displeasure given to a candidate as well as minor and major penalties imposed upon him. For easy reference, para 6.1.1 to 6.2.3 of the guidelines are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“6.1.1 Where promotions are to be made by selection method as prescribed in the recruitment rules. the DPC shall, for the purpose of determining the number of officers who will be considered from out of those eligible officers in the feeder grade( s), restrict the field of choice as under with reference to the number of clear regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the year:

No. of vacancies No. of officers to be considered

1 5 2 8 3 10

4 3 times the number of vacancies.

6.1.2 At present DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them. In order to ensure greater selectivity in matters of promotions and for having uniform procedures for assessment by DPCs, fresh guidelines are being prescribed. The matter has been examined and the following broad guidelines are laid down to regulate the assessment of suitability of candidates by DPCs.

6.1.3 While merit has to be recognized and rewarded