Union of India and Ors. Versus G.R. Meghwal

Union of India and Ors.  Versus G.R. Meghwal Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2021 OF 2022

Union of India and Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

G.R. Meghwal …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur

in DBCWP No. 740 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the

said writ petition preferred by the appellants and has confirmed the

judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal allowing the O.A.

No. 430 of 2011 by directing the Department to call for a review meeting

of the Screening Committee to re-assess his suitability for the purpose of

grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR of 2007-2008,

Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-

1

2.1 The respondent herein, who belonged to the cadre of Indian

Telecom Group A was sent on deputation to BSNL. He was posted as

Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Sikar. His ACR grading was “Very

Good” for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. However, for the year

2007-2008, his ACR grading was only “Good”. The below benchmark

grading for the year 2007-2008 was communicated to him vide letter

dated 13.05.2010. The respondent was informed that if he was not

satisfied with the same, he may submit his representation to the General

Manager, Telecom, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur. The respondent

accordingly submitted a representation on 19.06.2010. It was the case

on behalf of the respondent that he got ACR grading as “Very Good” for

the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, however, for the year 2007-2008,

he got ACR grading as only “Good”, despite the fact that in all the three

years, the reporting officer and the reviewing authority was same. It was

also the case on behalf of the respondent that despite there being no

deficiency or inefficiency in performance of his work, the Reviewing

Officer erroneously rated him “Good” in the ACR of the year 2007-2008,

instead of “Very Good”, as was given to him in ACRs of previous two

years.

2.2 His representation came to be turned down/rejected vide

communication/order dated 01.10.2010. That thereafter the meeting of

the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the

2

“DPC”) was held on 28.12.2010 to consider the grant of NFU in SAG.

The respondent was not found eligible by the DPC on the ground that in

the year 2007-2008, his ACR was “Good”. Therefore, the respondent

preferred O.A. No. 430 of 2011 before the Central Administrative

Tribunal.

2.3 Before the Tribunal, it was the case on behalf of the respondent

that his grading as “Good” in the year 2007-2008 and rejection of his

representation against the below benchmark was arbitrary and

unjustified in as much as no shortcomings in his work during the period

in question were ever brought to his notice.

2.4 The Tribunal opined that the remarks entered for the year 2007-

2008 were clearly adverse, which warranted communication to the

officer concerned within the time limit prescribed. This was to enable

him to submit his representation but no such opportunity was given to

the officer. Considering the fact that in the earlier two years his ACRs

were found to be “Very Good” and the subsequent ACR for the year

2007-2008 though was by the same reporting officer, the same was

“Good”, the same was arbitrary. The Tribunal hence 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 and to reconsider the case of the respondent accordingly.

3

2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order

passed by the learned Tribunal, the Union of India and others preferred

the writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and

order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, the Union of

India and others have hence preferred the present appeal.

3. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has vehemently submitted that in

the present case before the DPC met, an opportunity was given to the

respondent to make his representation against the below benchmark

ACR of the year 2007-2008. It is submitted that the same was in

accordance with the O.Ms. dated 14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010, which

were issued after considering the decision of this Court in the case of

Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725. It is

contended that the High Court as well as the learned Tribunal have erred

in directing to ignore the below benchmark ACR for the year 2007-2008

mainly and solely on the ground that prior to writing the below

benchmark ACR, no opportunity was given to the respondent officer. It is

submitted that the aforesaid view has been taken relying upon the

decisions of this Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra); Abhijit Ghosh

Dastidar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 146 (in this case

view taken in Dev Dutt (supra) was approved by this Court) and the

decision of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India

and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 573.

4

3.1 Learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted

that though it was held by this Court in the case of Sukhdeo Vs.

Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Anr., (1996) 5 SCC

103 that downgrading by the Reviewing Officer in comparison to his

previous grading without opportunity of hearing to the concerned

employee is illegal, however, this Court in the subsequent decision in the

case of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Sarnam Singh

and Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 339 has explained the decision in the case of

Sukhdeo (supra) and this Court has not accepted the view that before

an adverse entry was recorded in the character roll, an opportunity of

hearing was, by any principle, required to be given to the officer.

3.2 It is submitted that in that view of the matter and when the

respondent was having below benchmark ACR, i.e., “Good” in the year

2007-2008, which was considered by the DPC, the respondent was

rightly denied the functional upgradation in the SAG of ITS Group-A in

the pay band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-.

3.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Divan, learned ASG that merely

because in the earlier years, the respondent achieved “Very Good”, only

on that ground, it cannot be held that awarding “Good” in the subsequent

year was arbitrary and/or mala fide. It is submitted that the quality of

5

work performance of any employee may differ during the different period

even under the same reporting officer/reviewing authority. It is only upto

the reporting officer and reviewing authority to judge his performance

and give suitable grading.

3.4 It is submitted that in the present case, the subsequent

representation against the below benchmark was considered by a duly

constituted committee consisting of expertise on the subject. It is

submitted that after considering the grading of 2007-2008 and material

on record, the Committee rejected the representation of the respondent

herein. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in the case

of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors.,

AIR 1990 SC 434. It is submitted that as held by this Court whether a

particular candidate is fit for a particular post or not, has to be decided by

the duly constituted committee, which has expertise on the subject. It is

submitted that as observed, the Court has no such expertise and the

decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited

grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the

constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or

proved mala-fides affecting the selection etc.

6

3.5 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court

in the case of Dev Dutt (supra); subsequent decision in the case of

Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) and in the case of Sukhdev Singh

(supra) is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Divan, learned ASG that

none of the aforesaid decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the

case on hand. It is submitted that in fact after the decision of this Court

in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), the department issued two O.M.s dated

14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010 and the opportunity to the employee/officer

against the below benchmark ACR was given. It is submitted that even

otherwise in the aforesaid decisions, either the ACRs were not

communicated at all or it was found that adverse remarks suffer from

inconsistency or lack of bona fides.

3.6 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of

this Court in the case of Sarnam Singh (supra) and on the O.Ms. dated

14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and

quash and set aside the orders passed by the High Court as well as the

learned Tribunal.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Mukesh Kumar

Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent officer.

7

4.1 It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent that considering the fact that in the earlier years

2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the respondent’s ACRs were “Very Good”

and in the year 2007-2008, the very reporting officer/reviewing authority

gave the below benchmark “Good” and before giving the below

benchmark ACR – “Good”, no opportunity was given to the respondent

to improve himself against the proposed below benchmark ACR, both,

the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court have rightly directed to

review the case of the respondent ignoring the below benchmark ACR of

the year 2007-2008.

4.2 Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Dev Dutt

(supra), Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) and Sukhdev Singh (supra),

it is urged that as observed and held by this Court an opportunity to

make representation against the adverse remarks/below benchmark has

to be given within a reasonable time. That in the present case, such an

opportunity was not given within a reasonable time and even otherwise

on facts also when the very reporting officer/reviewing authority gave

“Very Good” in the previous years and in the subsequent year all of a

sudden gave below benchmark “Good”, it is rightly directed to ignore the

below benchmark “Good”.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

8

6. In the present case, the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court

have directed the department to review the case of the respondent by

ignoring the below benchmark of “Good” in the year 2007-2008 mainly

on the following grounds:- (i) that in the earlier years, the very reporting

officer/reviewing authority awarded “Very Good” for the years 2005-2006

and 2006-2007 and the very reporting officer/reviewing authority has

given below benchmark “Good” for the year 2007-2008 and therefore the

same is arbitrary and there is no basis to award the below benchmark –

“Good”; (ii) that before the below benchmark ACR “Good” for the year

2007-2008, no opportunity was given to the respondent officer to

improve himself and no deficiency was pointed out; and (iii) that no

opportunity was given to the respondent officer to make representation

against the proposed below benchmark ACR of the year 2007-2008.

While giving the aforesaid findings and while arriving at the aforesaid

final conclusion, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have heavily

relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Sukhdeo (supra);

Dev Dutt (supra); Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) and Sukhdev

Singh (supra). However, on considering the aforesaid decisions, it

emerges that in the aforesaid cases, the adverse ACRs either were not

communicated at all and/or on facts found to be inconsistent and

suffering from lack of bona fides.

9

6.1 In the case of Dev Dutt (supra), this Court has held in paragraphs

36 and 37 as under:-

“36. In the present case, we are developing the principles

of natural justice by holding that fairness and

transparency in public administration requires that all

entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in

the annual confidential report of a public servant, whether

in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except

the military), must be communicated to him within a

reasonable period so that he can make a representation

for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal

position even though there may be no rule/G.O. requiring

communication of the entry, or even if there is a rule/G.O.

prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in

State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution

in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will

override all rules or government orders.

37. We further hold that when the entry is communicated

to him the public servant should have a right to make a

representation against the entry to the authority

concerned, and the authority concerned must decide the

representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable

period. We also hold that the representation must be

decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the

entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation

will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration

as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this

would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public

administration, and would result in fairness to public

servants. The State must be a model employer, and must

act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good

governance be possible.”

6.2 In the instant case, the respondent was graded as “Very Good” in

the ACRs for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in the year

2007-08 he was graded only “Good” despite the fact that for all the three

10

years, the reporting and reviewing officer were same. In the case of Dev

Dutt Vs. Union of India - [(2008) 8 SCC 725], it was observed that all

entries in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him

within the reasonable period so that he can make a representation for

his upgradation despite there be no rule or government order to that

effect. Pursuant to the judgment in Dev Dutta (supra), OMs dated

14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010 were issued by the appellant herein. The

same are extracted as under:

“ANNEXURE P-2

No. 2101 1/1/2005-Estt (A) (Pt-II)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

(Department of Personnel and Training)

North Block, New Delhi, 14th May, 2009

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Maintenance and preparation of Annual

Performance Appraisal Reports-communication of all

entries for fairness and transparency in public

administration.

The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the

Ministries/Departments to the existing provisions in regard

to preparation and maintenance of Annual Confidential

Reports which inter-alia provide that only adverse

remarks should be communicated to the ‘officer reported

upon for representation, if any. The Supreme Court has

held in their judgment dated 12.5.2008 in the case of Dev

Dutt vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002)’

that the object of writing the confidential report and

making entries is to give an opportunity to the public

servant to improve the performance. The 2nd

11

Administrative Reforms Commission in their 10th Report

has also recommended that the performance appraisal

system for all services be made more consultative and

transparent on the lines of the PAR of the All India

Services.

2. Keeping in view the above position, the matter

regarding communication of entries in the ACRs in the

case of civil services under the, Government of India has

been further reviewed and the undersigned is directed to

convey the following decisions of the Government:

(i) The existing nomenclature of the Annual

Confidential Report will be modified as Annual

Performance Assessment Report (APAR).

(ii) The full APAR including the overall grade and

assessment of integrity shall be communicated to

the concerned officer after the Report is complete

with the remarks of the Reviewing Officer and the

Accepting Authority wherever such system is in

vogue. Where Government servant has only one

supervisory level above him as in the case of

personal staff attached to officers, such

communication shall be made after the reporting

officer has completed the performance assessment.

(iii) The section entrusted with the maintenance of

APARs after its receipt shall disclose the same to

the officer reported upon.

(iv) The concerned officer shall be given the opportunity

to make any representation against the entries and

the final grading given in the Report within a period

of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the entries

in the APAR. The representation shall be restricted

to the specific factual observations contained in the

report leading to assessment of the officer in terms

of attributes, work output etc. While communicating

the entries, it shall be made clear that in case no

representation is received within the fifteen days, it

shall be deemed that he/she has no representation

to make. If the concerned APAR Section does not

receive any information from the concerned officer

12

on or before fifteen days from the date of disclosure,

the APAR will be treated as final.

(v) The new system of communicating the entries in the

APAR shall be made applicable prospectively only

with effect from the reporting period 2008-09 which

is to be initiated after 1st April, 2009.

(vi) The competent authority for considering adverse

remarks under the existing instructions may

consider the representation, if necessary, in

consultation with the reporting and/or reviewing

officer and shall decide the matter objectively based

on the material placed before him within a period of

thirty days from the date of receipt of the

representation.

(vii) The competent authority after due consideration

may reject the representation or may accept and

modify the APAR accordingly. The decision of the

competent authority and the final grading shall be

communicated to the officer reported upon within

fifteen days of receipt of the decision of the

competent authority by the concerned APAR

Section.

3. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring to the

notice of all the offices under them for strict

implementation of the above instructions.

(C.A. Subramanian)

Director

ANNEXURE P-3

No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.A

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

Department of Personnel & Training

North Block, New Delhi

Dated the 13th April, 2010

13

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Below Benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to

the reporting period 2008-09 and objective consideration

of representation by the competent authority against

remarks in the APAR or for upgradation of the final

grading.

The undersigned is directed to say that prior to the

reporting period 2008-09, only the adverse remarks in the

ACRs had to be communicated to the concerned officer

for representation, if any to be considered by the

competent authority. The question of treating the grading

in the ACR which is below the benchmark for next

promotion has been considered in this Department and it

has been decided that if an employee is to be considered

for promotion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the

period 2008-09 which would be reckonable for

assessment of his fitness in such future DPCs contain

final grading which are below the benchmark for his next

promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC,

the concerned employee will be given a copy of the

relevant ACR for his representation, if any, within 15 days

of such communication, it may be noted that only below

benchmark ACR for the period relevant to promotion need

be sent. There is no need to send below benchmark

ACRs of other years.

2. As per existing instructions, representations against the

remarks or for upgradation of the final grading given in the

APAR (previously known as ACR) should be examined by

the competent authority in consultation, if necessary, with

the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer, if any while

considering the representation, the competent authority

decides the matter objectively in a quasi-judicial manner

on the basis of material placed before it. This would imply

that the competent authority shall take into account the

contentions of the officer who has represented against the

particular remarks/grading in the APAR and the views of

the Reporting and Reviewing officer if they are still in

service on the points raised in the representation vis-à-vis

the remarks/gradings given by them in the APAR. The

UPSC has informed this Department that the Commission

14

has observed that while deciding such representations,

the competent authorities sometimes do not take into

account the views of Reporting/Reviewing Officers if they

are still in service. The Commission has further observed

that in a majority of such cases, the competent authority

does not give specific reasons for upgrading the below

benchmark ACR/APAR gradings at par with the

benchmark for next promotion.

3. All Ministries/Departments are therefore requested to

inform the competent authorities while forwarding such

cases to them to decide on the representations against

the remarks or for upgradation of the grading in the APAR

that the decision on the representation may be taken

objectively after taking into account the views of the

concerned Reporting/Reviewing Officers if they are still in

service and in case of upgradation of the final grading

given in the APAR, specific reasons therefore may also be

given in Inc order of the competent authority.

(C.A. Subramanian)

Director”

On perusal of OM dated 14.05.2009, it is noted that the new

system of communicating the entries in Annual Performance

Assessment Report (APAR) provides that the same should be

communicated within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of

the entries in the APAR. The new system is applicable prospectively

with effect from the reporting period 2008-09, which is initiated after

01.04.2009.

6.3 Further as per OM dated 13.04.2010, it has been stated that

the question of treating the grading in the ACR which is below the

benchmark for next promotion has been considered by the Department

15

and it has been decided that if an employee is to be considered for

promotion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the period 2008-09

which would be reckonable for assessment of his fitness in such future

DPCs contain final grading which are below the benchmark for his next

promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC, the concerned

employee will be given a copy of the relevant ACR for his representation

if any, within fifteen days of such communication and only below

benchmark ACR for the period relevant to promotion need be sent.

There is no need to send below benchmark ACRs of other years.

7. 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 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

16

Committee subsequently assessed him unfit for grant of promotion i.e.,

grant of NFU in SAG of ITS Group-A.

8. 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 paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order of the Tribunal.

The same are extracted as under:

“4. We agree with the respondents that an officer need

not earn the same grading every year and the grading

could be different each year based on his performance. If,

this was not the case, the whole purpose of an annual

assessment would stand defeated. However, a careful

perusal of the copies of ACRs produced by the applicant

at Annexure A/4 for the 3 years i.e. 2005-06, 2006-07 &

2007-08 shows that in the year 2007-08 highly damaging

remarks have been recorded by the same reporting

authority and endorsed by the same reviewing authority.

Even in regard to matters which could be regarded as

personal attributes as different from performance

parameters – such as communication skills, capacity for

appraisal, ability to weigh pros and cons before taking a

decision, organizing capability, domain knowledge in

respect of the area of work etc. the remarks appear to be

virtually the opposite of those entered by the same

authority in the previous years. To illustrate, the reporting

17

authority had entered the following remarks in his ACR of

2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 :-

ACR comments for the year 2005-06:

He has very good knowledge of technical field.

Also level of application of related instructions

was also very good. He has very good

knowledge of administrative matters and his level

of application related instruction was very good.

He was willing to assume responsibility. He has

very good organizing capability, motivating ability

and timely and proper guidance giving capability.

He has very good capacity/resourcefulness to

anticipate problems in advance and to take

action to handle such situations as well as

unforeseen situations. He has very good quality

of decision making and is able to weigh pros and

cons of alternatives. He has good capability of

communication and present arguments in oral

and written way. He has very good skill and

capacity of evaluating and recording

performance of subordinates in an impartial and

objective manner.

ACR Comments for the year 2006-07:

He has very good technical knowledge. He has

very good administrative knowledge. He has very

good capacity to set targets. He can anticipate

change, understood environment and contributed

new ideas. He was generally willing to assume

responsibilities. He has very good organizing

capacity and was able to motivate and provide

timely and proper guidance to subordinates. He

could handle unforeseen situations at his own

and was willing to take responsibility. He has

good skill and capacity in evaluating and

recording performance of subordinates in an

impartial and objective manner.

5. As against the aforesaid remarks, ACR of the officer for

the year 2007-08 contains following remarks recorded by

the same authority:

18

Technical knowledge is good. Financial

knowledge is poor. Administrative knowledge is

very poor particularly in tender work/rulings

application. He was always have to be chased to

set targets for himself and subordinates. He

hardly understood the environment in anticipating

change and contributing new ideas/methods of

work he was just average. He was never willing

to assume responsibility, had poor organizing

capacity and was average in motivating/providing

timely and proper guidance to staff. He was

incapacitated and very poor in anticipating

problems and handle unforeseen situations on

his own. He was never willing to take additional

responsibility and new areas of work. He had

very poor decision making quality and also very

poor in weighing pros and cons of alternatives.

He has average ability to communicate and

present arguments in written and poor in verbal.”

6. It would be clear from remarks entered for the year

2007-08 that they were clearly adverse which warranted

communication to the officer within the time limits

prescribed to enable him to submit his representation.

Many of the remarks were the exact opposite of the

positive attributes found in him in the previous years by

the same authority. Admittedly, remarks were not

communicated to the applicant within the time limits

prescribed for such communication under the prevailing

rules governing ACRs. There is also no evidence of the

attention of the officer being drawn during the year itself

to his falling standards along with necessary

caution/advice so as to give him a chance to improve.”

8.1 The Tribunal has also 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

19

give him a chance to improve. The Tribunal has 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 and the same was set aside. It was

further observed by the Tribunal that the assessment of 2007-08 were

clearly arbitrary and inconsistent and ought not to be allowed to stand in

the way of proper assessment of the respondent by the Screening

Committee for his suitability to be promoted to a higher grade. Hence, a

direction was issued to the Screening Committee to consider and

reassess the suitability of the respondent herein for the purpose of grant

of SAG by excluding the ACR of 2007-08 and if the respondent was

found suitable for grant of consequential benefits. Against the order of

the Tribunal the Union of India, the appellant herein preferred a writ

petition before the High Court, which reiterated what had been observed

by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of its order and dismissed the writ

petition.

20

9. On perusal of what has been extracted by the Tribunal from the

ACRs of 2005-06, we note that the respondent has been graded as

“Very Good” since he has very good knowledge in technical field as well

as of administrative matters; willing to assume responsibility; has good

organizing capability; motivating ability and timely and proper guidance

giving capability. The respondent has the capacity/resourcefulness to

anticipate problems in advance as well as unforeseen situations. He has

very good quality decision-making ability and is able to weigh pros and

cons of alternatives and good capability of communication and present

arguments in oral and written manner and good skill and capacity of

evaluating and recording performance of subordinates in an impartial

and objective manner.

Similarly in the remarks for the year 2006-07, it has been written

that the respondent has very good technical knowledge as well as

administrative knowledge. He has very good organizing capacity and

was able to motivate and provide timely and proper guidance to

subordinates. He has good skill and capacity in evaluating and

recording performance of subordinates in an impartial and objective

manner.

21

As against the aforesaid favourable remarks for the previous two

years, in the year 2007-08 it has been stated that though the technical

knowledge of the respondent is good, his financial and administrative

knowledge is poor; that he has hardly understood the environment in

anticipating change; that he was never willing to assume responsibility,

and had poor organising capacity and cannot anticipate problems and

unforeseen situations and does not take additional responsibility and

has poor decision-making quality and average ability in communication

and presenting case problems.

10. Therefore, in view of the above and in the facts and circumstances

of the case and considering the fact that though the respondent 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, we are of the opinion that in view of the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal and the High

Court have not committed any error in directing the Department to call

for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess the

suitability of the respondent for the purpose of grant of SAG and while

22

doing so to exclude the ACR for the year 2007-2008. Therefore, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this Court is

called for.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present

appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly

dismissed.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

23