RAJENDRA PRASAD MANDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner is presently an Assistant (Tech) in the Regional Development Office of Central Silk Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), Patna. He has prayed for quashing of memorandum dated 10 -8 -1999 contained in Annexure -1 whereby his representation for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Tech) has been rejected. His further prayer is to command the respondents to promote him to the aforesaid post from the date when respondent No. 7, a junior of the petitioner, was granted such promotion, along with all consequential reliefs.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner is senior to respondent No. 7 and had the petitioner not been awarded and communicated the adverse remarks contained in Annexure -4 dated 1 -3 -1996, he may have been selected for the promotion in question for which the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 25 -6 -1999. From Annexure -1, The memorandum under challenge in this writ application, it is clear that petitioner's case was considered and he was not found fit for promotion on account of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1994 -95. The adverse remarKs were admittedly communicated to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 12 -3 -1996 (Annexure -3). It was clearly mentioned in the memorandum dated 1 -3 -1996 (Annexure -4) that representation, if any, on the adverse remarks may be given within one month from the date of receipt of that memorandum. The memorandum containing the adverse remarks (Annexure -4) was issued by the Assistant Secretary (Admn) from the office of the Board at Bangalore. The petitioner chose not to make any representation against the adverse remarks till 1 -1 -1998 and in the intervening period since no representation had been filed against the adverse remarks hence, the petitioner was not found fit for promotion by the DPC and respondent No. 7 was promoted.

(3.) FROM the materials on record, it is clear that petitioner did not represent against the adverse remarks duly communicated to him and the first representation filed by him in this connection dated 1 -1 -1998 (Annexure -5) discloses that he had raised a grievance against supersession by a junior (respondent No. 7) and not against the adverse remarks communicated in March 1996. The Board gave a clear reply in the matter through memorandum dated 29 -1 -1998 (Annexure -7) disclosing the fact that the DPC in its meeting held on 25 -6 -1996 had not found him fit for promotion on account of adverse remarks against which the petitioner had not represented. Thereafter, in his next representation dated 9 -2 -1998 (Annexure -8), the petitioner included statements to the effect that remarks in the ACR for 1994 -95 were not recorded by the Reporting Officer impartially, rather it was done arbitrary, perhaps for some personalreasons. In the next representation dated 27 -3 -1998, petitioner took a legal stand that promotion cannot be denied unless a charge -sheet had been issued before the meeting of the DPC. In the next representation dated 5 -8 -1998 (Annexure -10), the petitioner alleged personal mala fide against respondent No. 5, who was Deputy Secretary (Tech) at Patna during the relevant time. An allegation was made that Mr. Mukherjee wanted the office premises to shift to a different locality in the town of Patna and this was opposed by some members of the staff including the petitioner which led to a decision against shifting and hence, Mr. Mukherjee as Reporting Officer gave adverse remarks against the petitioner. After that, the petitioner filed a case bearing OA No. 168 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna which was disposed of on 30 -6 -1999 only withf a direction upon the respondents to dispose of petitioner's representation, dated 5 -8 -1998 by a speaking order in accordance with law. In compliance, the Board passed a speaking order rejecting petitioner's representation vide impugned memorandum dated 10 -8 -1999 (Annexure -1).