LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus G.R. MEGHWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 481 [2022] 15 S.C.R. 481 481 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. G.R. MEGHWAL (Civil Appeal No. 2021 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Service Law: Promotion – Suitability for grant of Senior Administrative Grade – Assessment of Annual Confidential Report (ACR) – Deputy General Manager, BSNL of Indian Telecom Group A cadre, graded “Very Good” for the years 2005-2006 and 2006- 2007, however, only ‘Good’ for the year 2007-2008 – Officer was communicated the same – He submitted his representation but the same was rejected – Thereafter, in Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held for grant of Non Functional-upgradation in SAG, the officer was not found eligible on the ground that in the year 2007-2008, his ACR was “Good” – Challenge to, by the officer – Tribunal set aside the rejection of the representation and directed to review the case of the respondent ignoring the below benchmark “Good” for the year 2007- 2008 – Said order upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Though the officer was graded as “Very Good” in the ACRs for the years 2005-2006 and 2006- 2007, and was graded only “Good” in the ACR for the year 2007-2008 by the very same reporting and reviewing officer, despite the fact that specifically the respondent was given the opportunity against the ACR for the year 2007-2008 – However, no valid reasons are given for rejecting the representation – Thus, the tribunal and the High Court did not commit any error in directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess the suitability of the officer for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR for the year 2007-2008. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 In the instant case, the below benchmark ACR reporting the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 was communicated to the respondent vide communication dated 08.06.2010 in respect of which representation was made by the respondent on 19.06.2010. The same was rejected as per the A B C D E F G H 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. communication dated 01.10.2010. According to the respondent, the reviewing officer was due for retirement on 31.03.2008 and the respondent submitted self-appraisal report on 15.04.2008 for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and reporting officer graded as “Good” on 17.04.2008. Further, reviewing officer signed and accepted the same without any date in spite of fact that he had retired on 31.03.2008 as per Annexure A-6 to the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal. According to the respondent, his representation was not being objectively considered. In the circumstances, Departmental Screening Committee subsequently assessed him unfit for grant of promotion i.e., grant of NFU in SAG of ITS Group-A. [Para 7][495- D-F] 1.2 The tribunal on perusal of Annexure A-4/being ACRs for three years i.e., 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 has noted that for the year 2007-08 highly damaging remarks have been recorded by the same reporting authority and endorsed by the same reviewing authority. The remarks are totally opposite to those entered by the same authority previous years. The comparison of the remarks made in the ACRs for the year 2007- 08 and for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 have been made and extracted in the order of the Tribunal. [Para 8][495-G-H] 1.3 The Tribunal noted that adverse remarks were not communicated to the respondent herein within the time limits prescribed for such communication under the prevailing rules governing the ACRs. Further attention of the officer was not drawn during the year itself, to supposed falling standards along with necessary caution/advice so as to give him a chance to improve. The tribunal further noted that it is not the case of below benchmark grading but a case of recording adverse remarks in the extreme. That the representations made by the respondent were not considered objectively, dispassionately, and fairly as there were contradiction in the qualities or attributes communicated in the said ACRs which were wholly contradictory to each other. In the circumstances, the tribunal held that “adverse remarks made for the year 2007-08 were sweeping, extreme, and inconsistent with the previous remarks. Hence it was held that the rejection of the representation was unjustified A B C D E F G H 483 and the same was set aside. It was further observed by the tribunal that the assessment of 2007-08 were clearly arbitrary and inconsis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.