M.K. Bhatt vs Union Of India & Ors.

Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)

By this O.A., the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to treat the ACR’s of the applicant for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 (Annexure A/1 and A/2) as upgraded upto the bench mark.

In nutshell, the case of the applicant is that while he was working as Artist-cum-Photographer Technical Officer (T-6), he was awarded adverse/below bench mark in his ACR’s for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15, which was communicated to the applicant vide letters dated 13.8.2014 and 5.10.2015. Against that, the applicant preferred a representation dated 27.8.2014 and 12.10.2015 to the Deputy Director General, ICAR (respondent no.2). But the respondent no.3 in utter violation of statutes and rules decided the representation of the applicant dated 27.8.2014 vide order dated 18.10.2014. The said order was assailed by the applicant through representation dated 15.11.2014, which was rejected vide order dated 4.3.2015. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal on 11.5.2015 before the Hon’ble President, ICAR, which is said to be pending. The applicant also asserts that his representation pertaining to the adverse remarks for the year 2014-15 has not yet been disposed of by the competent authority even after lapse of reasonable period of time. Hence, this O.A.

The respondents have resisted the claim of the applicant by filing detailed Reply wherein they have stated that the applicant is a consistently poor performer as can be evident from his past service record over the last ten years. The applicant has been served several notices for not doing the assigned work properly, taking no initiatives, avoiding responsibility etc. The respondents have also pleaded in their Reply that the applicant has been rated as ‘Good’ between the years 2005-06 and 2010-11. Not only that, the Director also found the applicant to be slow, always grumbling, refusing to take additional responsibility, showing no improvement in his work efficiency, writing letters to the ICAR etc, which was also communicated to the applicant vide his APARs during 2013-14 and 2014-15. The respondents also stated that the applicant became eligible for assessment on 1.1.2007 after completion of 5 years of service in the present grade and his case was considered by the Assessment Committee on 13.3.2012, but he was not recommended for promotion to the next higher grade (T-7/8). The applicant was found shirking responsibility, making excuses and delaying the assigned work for long period and the attitude of the applicant was unacceptable and detrimental to a healthy working environment. The representation of the applicant dated 27.8.2014 along with other representations were forwarded to the ICAR for consideration of the DDG (NRM) with certain remarks. However, in 2013-14 the applicant showed no improvement, rather refused to accept additional responsibility, hence he was assessed and graded accordingly. Against the representation dated 12.2.2015, the respondents have stated that the applicant was advised through office note dated 6.11.2015 not to represent directly to the senior authorities, but to follow procedure and submit his representation firstly to the reviewing authority i.e. Director, DWR. This was the procedure followed during 2013-14 when his representation was first disposed of by the Director, DWR and thereafter by the DDG (NRM), ICAR. The respondents have also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that writing the confidential report is primarily and essentially an administrative function. In conclusion, the respondents have stated that the applicant has no case and the O.A. filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed.

The applicant has filed Rejoinder to the Reply filed by the respondents by negating the contentions of the respondents made in the Reply by reiterating the averments as already made in the Original Application and nothing new has been added in the Rejoinder.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the pleadings available on record.

The issue involved in this O.A. within the scope of the effect that the adverse remarks during the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 has rightly been awarded to the applicant or not ? Admittedly, the applicant was given an opportunity to represent against the adverse remarks awarded to him for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since the competent authority of the respondents has duly considered the representation of the applicant and has not found any justification for up-gradation of his ACRs, for the periods, in question, and as such the same was rejected by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the respondents, which is as per the prescribed procedure on the issue.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submissions:

(i) O.A. No. 121 of 2011 Amar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal on 13.6.2016.

(ii) O.A. No. 1060 of 2013 Hari Om Prasad Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal on 31.5.2015.

We have carefully gone through the orders as cited by the learned counsel for the respondents and found that the facts and circumstances of the cited case are in tune with the instant case and as such the ratio laid down in the aforementioned case would also be apply in the instant case as well.

In the case of Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2011 10 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-

“Writing the confidential report is primarily and essentially an administrative function. Normally tribunals/Courts are loath to interfere in cases of complaints against adverse remarks and to substitute their own judgment for that of the reporting or reviewing officers. It is because these officers alone are best suited to judge the qualities of officials working under them and about their competence in the performance of official duties entrusted to them. Despite fear of abuse of power by prejudiced superior officers in certain cases, the service record contained in the confidential reports, by and large, reflects the real personality of the officer.”

In view of the discussions made hereinabove and also keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (supra), we are of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out any case for grant of relief(s) in his favour. Accordingly, the O.A. has no merit and the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.