Ahmadi, J. - (1.) These appeals by special leave are directed against the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on February 9, 1993 whereby it directed the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (for short 'ACC') to reconsider the suitability of respondent No. 1 S. K. Bhargava for appointment to the post of Chief Controller of Explosives without taking into consideration the adverse remarks made in the year 1987 and the outcome of the Central Bureau of Investigation's (for short 'CBP') enquiry from which he was exonerated and in the light of the observations contained in its judgment. The facts giving rise to these two appeals, briefly stated, are as under.
(2.) Shri B. R. Dave, the Chief Controller of Explosives superannuated on June 30, 1984 but as no suitable candidate was available for appointment to the post he was granted re-employment for a period of one year i.e. from July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985. On his vacating the post w.f. July 1, 1985 as no suitable candidate was available for manning the said post the seniormost Joint Chief Controller of Explosives was appointed on ad hoc basis as Chief Controller of Explosives w.e.f. July 1, 1985. Dr. H. Mukherjee who was the seniormost Joint Chief Controller of Explosives thus functioned as the Chief Controller of Explosives on an ad hoc basis w.e.f. July 1, 1985. The ACC approved the ad hoc appointment on condition that he will vacate the post on regular appointment being made in accordance with rules. It may be mentioned that under the relevant rules the post of Chief Controller of Explosives could be filled in by promotion transfer on deputation (including short term contract) or by direct recruitment. Since no suitable candidate was available for filling the post by promotion! transfer a decision was taken to fill the post by direct recruitment. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment to the said post on July 13, 1985. Pursuant thereto one R. C. Srivastava was selected for appointment but his selection was not approved by the ACC A fresh advertisement was issued by the Union Public Service Commission on February 7, 1987, in pursuance whereof respondent No. 1 came to be selected on June 10,. 1987. On June 18, 1987 the approval of ACC was sought but while the matter was pending before the ACC, a CBI enquiry was commenced against him in September, 1987 in regard to some incident of 1985. This enquiry ended in his exoneration in December, 1987. After he came to be exonerated the ACC took up the question regarding his appointment pursuant to the selection made by UPSC. It, however, appears that in his Confidential Report pertaining to the year 1987 an adverse comment was made to the following effect: "......he has not the ability to give leadership in a department which has all India jurisdiction. He has also been orally advised not to bring outside influence in his service matters. He needs to develop a proper perspective about the role and functioning of the department. He has not done any meritorious work." The said adverse remarks were communicated to him on May 20, 1988. He made a representation for expunging the said adverse remarks on June 10, 1988. His representation was partly accepted by the order dated October 4, 1988, in that, the remark 'He has not done any meritorious work' was ordered to be expunged. Thereafter on December 7, 1988, the ACC took the decision not to appoint him to the post in question. He challenged this decision by moving the Central Administrative Tribunal which allowed the application and gave directions as stated hereinabove. It is this order of the Tribunal which is questioned in these appeals. As the issue involved is the same we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.
(3.) It may be mentioned that on the facts narrated above the Tribunal came to the following conclusion: "In the instant case no adverse remarks had been communicated to the appellant at the time of selection of the appellant by the UPSC in June, 1987 for the post of Chief Controller of Explosives. There was no investigation or enquiry pending against him in regard to any alleged misconduct on his part at that point of time. That being so we are of the opinion that subsequent events such as communication of remarks to the applicant for the year 1987 and the CBI enquiry initiated against him into alleged acts of misconduct which was dropped would have no bearing on the suitability of the applicant for the post of Chief Controller of Explosives. The subsequent events and developments should not be taken into account by the ACC while adjudging his suitability." Proceeding further the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since no reason was assigned by the ACC for rejecting the recommendation made by the UPSC for the appointment of respondent No. I as Chief Controller of Explosives by way of direct recruitment, the decision was vitiated. In this view of the matter the Tribunal remitted the matter to the ACC to reconsider the recommendation of the UPSC without taking into account the adverse remarks of 1987 and the outcome of the CBI enquiry. It further directed that the ACC may take a decision in the light of the observations contained in the judgment which we have extracted earlier. In view of the above, the short question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that events subsequent to the recommendation made by the UPSC could not be taken into consideration for deciding whether or not the candidate recommended was suitable for appointment and whether the omission on the part of the ACC to state the reason for departing from the recommendation of the UPSC was fatal and vitiated the decision;