INSP./GD Krishna Rajak vs Union of India and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—We think that the instant matter can be solved by converting the pleadings to a dart board; and if the bull''s eye can be seen with clarity, we are confident that the dart thrown by us would hit the target. But, before that, we record that learned counsel for the respondent who appears on advance copy being served waives notice and a right to file the counter affidavit because admittedly all relevant documents have been filed along with the writ petition.

Now the dart board.

It has to be a heptagon because, pertaining to the ACR grading of the petitioner, the proforma prescribed has seven traits to be assessed by the Reporting Officer and these seven create the heptagon.

The seven traits are: (i) Industry and Perseverance; (ii) Keenness of initiative; (iii) Power of expression; (iv) Supervision and guidance; (v) Loyalty, reliability, security and mindedness; (vi) Acceptance of responsibility, judgment and discipline; and (vii) Any special commendatory. Pertaining to the period 1996 till the year 2011, for the seven traits, the petitioner was graded:

Trait 1

Trait 2

Trait 3

Trait 4

Trait 5

Trait 6

Trait 7

1996

V Good

V Good

V Good

Good

Loyal & Relia-ble

V Good

N.A.

1997

Good

Good

Good

Good

-do-

Good

N.A.

1998

V Good

V Good

Good

Good

-do-

V Good

N.A.

1999

Good

Good

Good

Good

-do-

V Good

N.A.

2000

Hardship

Takes initiative

Average

Good

-do-

V Good

N.A.

2001

Inquisitive & reserve in nature

Keen

V Good

V Good

-do-

V Good

N.A.

2002

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

-do-

V Good

Excellent in all tasks assignned and producesdesired results

2003

Hardwo-rking

Takes keen interest

Good

Good

-do-

V Good

N.A.

2004

Hardworking & sincere

-do-

V Good

V Good

Very reliable and loyal

Acceptance of responsebility and takes correct judgment

N.A.

2005

Extremely hardworking

Outstanding

Outstanding

Able Guide

Extremely loyal

Outstanding

N.A.

2006

Industry & perseverance

Takes interest & initiative

V Good

V Good

Loyal & reliable

Takes judgments, tactful and disciplened

N.A.

2007

Should take more interest

Takes no initiative

Power of expression not effective

Command and control is Average

Average quality

Takes responsibility casually. Discipline is average.

He is not taking much interest in the job.

2008

Hardworking

Takes initiative in his work

V Good

V Good

Loyal to his service

V Good

V Good

2009

Extremely hardworking

Outstanding

Outstanding

An able officer. Guides his subordinates for result

Extremely loyal and reliable

OutstanDing

N.A.

2010

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

2011

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

V Good

The dart board speaks it all. For all the years in question, except the year 2007, the petitioner has been graded on the seven facets, mostly ''Very Good''; on some occasion ''Good'' and on some occasion ''Outstanding''. The remarks for the year 2007 are a complete mismatch. The result is that for the years 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2008 the overall ACR grading of the petitioner is ''Good'' and that for the years 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010 and 2011 the ACR grading is ''Very Good'' and for the years 2002, 2005 and 2009 is ''Outstanding'', for the year 2007 it is ''Average''.

Now, it is not possible that for 11 years a person is either ''Very Good'' or ''Outstanding'' and then for one year he drops to ''Average'' and then regains ''Very Good'' and ''Outstanding'' in the next three years.

Let us illustrate one trait. The trait No. (iii) i.e. ''Power of Expression''. This is not a trait which is acquired and lost overnight. The dart board would reveal that for this trait the petitioner has been rated all throughout as ''Good'', ''Very Good'' or ''Outstanding'', but for the year 2007 the officer has written that petitioner''s power of expression is not effective.

There is obviously a problem, and the problem appears to be as disclosed by the petitioner; that the Commandant under whom he was working i.e. M.P.Singh was accepting lower quality of ration for troops and the petitioner being a member of the Tendering Opening/Condemnation Board had wanted samples to be obtained and in retaliation, the Commandant Shri M.P.Singh, made entries reflecting petitioner in a poor light.

We are pained to note that in the impugned memorandum dated February 09, 2012, the Competent Authority has rejected the representation of the petitioner against the adverse grading awarded to the petitioner and the overall grading ''Average'' for the year 2007, oblivious of the fact that a wrong against the petitioner stands stark in the ACR grading for the year 2007.

The dart, shot at the dart board, is bound to see the bull''s eye i.e. the offending comments noted in the ACR grading of the petitioner because of their inherent strength and character to attract the dart to the board where the ACR gradings stand noted.

We allow the writ petition and strike down the ACR grading awarded to the petitioner for the year 2007, and since the Competent Authority has totally misapplied its mind, being of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served for the Competent Authority to be directed to reconsider the ACR grading for the year 2007, we declare that said year''s ACR grading be excluded while considering the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion. Highlighting that at the DPC which met somewhere in the year 2008, the petitioner was superseded on account of the below benchmark ACR grading for the year 2007, we direct that a Review DPC be held and while considering the ACR gradings of the petitioner, to exclude the ACR grading for the year 2007 and instead take into account the ACR grading of one year back. Needful be done within 12 weeks from today. Needless to state, if the petitioner is found fit for promotion, he be promoted with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation etc. except back-wages being not paid, on the principle of petitioner not having shouldered the responsibility for the higher post; but all other benefits of notional promotion from a back-date which would include revised pay fixation would be given effect to. No costs.