Arun Kumar Sharma vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2011 in O.A. No.4248/2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The only question in this appeal relates to the recording of the ACR for the year 2005-06. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Reporting Officer had given ''very good'' and the same was maintained by the Reviewing Authority whereas the accepting authority reduced it to ''average''. When the petitioner was informed about this he moved a representation and that representation has also been considered, however the grading of ''average'' has been maintained. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the order dated 04.11.2010 which has been passed on the representation filed by the petitioner with regard to the ACR for 2005-06. He pointed out that in Paragraph 4 of the order it has been mentioned that comments were received from the Reviewing Officer (Shri Indu Prakash) whereby it was indicated that the remarks given in the petitioner''s ACR may not be treated as adverse remarks. However, we find that in the first instance the Reviewing Officer had not given any adverse remarks and that he had maintained the grading of ''very good'' of the Reporting Officer. It is only the Accepting Authority who has given the remark of ''average''. Paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 of the order dated 04.11.2010, which are relevant, read as under:-

Whereas, the remarks of Accepting Authority Shri L.K. Joshi, former Secretary, M/o Personnel Public Grievances & Pension are asunder:-

I have seen the work of Shri A.K. Sharma very closely. The assessment of both the Reporting as well as Reviewing Officers is highly exaggerated. His qualify of output, dedication to work, leadership qualities and initiative can be called just average, if judged liberally. He had to be admonished on several times for holding up the work by just sitting on the files. "AVERAGE".

Whereas, now the Accepting Authority the then Hon''ble Minister (SRT&H) Shri T.R. Ballu had counter signed on the remarks of Accepting Authority i.e. Shri L.K. Joshi, former Secretary.

Whereas, now the Competent Authority in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has considered the entries in the ACR of Shri A.K. Sharma for the period 2005-06 and the fresh representation made by Shri A.K. Sharma, CE regarding below bench mark grading in his ACR for the period 2005-06. 9. Now, therefore, after having carefully considered the entries in the said ACR, the representation of Shri A.K. Sharma, CE thereon and the subsequent comments of the Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Officer, the Competent Authority in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has decided now that the grading of ''Average'' given in the ACR of Shri A.K. Sharma for the period 2005-06 stands.

The position that emerges is that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and after consideration it has been decided that the grading of ''average'' given in the ACR for the period 2005-06 should stand. There is no occasion for us to take a different view in the matter inasmuch as we cannot substitute our views for that of the competent authority.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he should have been given an opportunity for personal hearing at the time of the representation. But, we do not see any reason as to why he should have been given such opportunity. Once his representation was there and the fact is that the competent authority did consider all aspects mentioned in the representation, there is no need to accede to what the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted.

The scope of judicial review is very limited in respect of consideration of gradings given in ACR''s. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with impugned order as mentioned above. The Tribunal''s decision is correct and we confirm the same. The writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.