CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 418/2015 Order Reserved on: 29.11.2024 DATE OF ORDER: 20.12.2024 CORAM HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Parmanand Khandelwal son of Late Shri Kanhaiya La Khandelwal, aged around 53 years, resident of 75/134, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Presently working as Senior Tax Assistant in the department of Income Tax, Jaipur.

....Applicant Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant.

VERSUS

1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block New Delhi.

2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, North Block New Delhi.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur.

4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (I), Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur.

.... Respondents Shri V.D. Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri Gaurav Jain, counsel for the respondents.

ORDER Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by the adverse entries in his ACR for the year 2007-2008 and has prayed for the following reliefs: -

(i) The present original application may kindly be allowed and adverse remarks entered in the ACR for the year 2007-08 of the applicant may kindly be expunged. The applicant may be declared fit for promotion to the next higher post and he may be graded as very good. The document Annexure-A/1, Annexure-A/2 and Annexure-A/3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(i) Any other order or direction which deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.

(iii) Cost of this original application also may be awarded in favour of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that while he was working on the post of Senior Tax Assistant, he received a communication dated 26/28.11.2008 (Annexure A/1) issued by the office of Commissioner of Income Tax-I, (CIT-I), Jaipur mentioning five entries which were treated as adverse detailing the adverse remarks as well as category of assessment. The applicant filed representation against the same which was decided by the respondents and intimated to the applicant vide communication dated 16.08.2010 (Annexure A/2) upholding the original remarks, however, in the column of “Modified Remarks of Reviewing Authority” against the fifth entry which in the original ACR read as “good worker but needs constant watch and supervision”, revised as “official needs constant watch and supervision then how he can be a good worker understands his duty”. The applicant filed a reference against the decision dated 16.08.2010 on his representation. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vide communication dated 20% July, 2014 (enclosed with Annexure A/3) informed that in pursuance to the reference filed by the applicant, a three members referral board was constituted and the referral board after considering each and every points raised by the applicant found that he had not come up with any new grounds / issues which he had raised earlier in his representation and which have already been gone into and considered. The referral board after carefully considering his reference upheld the decision already taken by the competent authority on his representation.

3. In the present Original Application, the applicant has raised the ground that the respondents had only furnished him that part of ACR which was prejudicial and had not supplied the entire ACR and comments were invited on the adverse entries only but was not informed the overall findings of the reviewing officer and the reporting officer. He further agitates that he was not informed as to how he was lacking and he was never advised to improve his performance. Besides, no specific reason was given for assessing that the applicant was lacking in his responsibility to