Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsels appearing for the Union of India and Income Tax Department. Shri T.C. Gupta has appeared in person.
(2.) ALL the three writ petitions, arise out of an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. Nos. 296/2010 and 315/2011, decided by common order dated 30.5.2012, and the orders passed by the Tribunal on review applications No. 11/Jodhpur/2012 & 12/Jodhpur/2012. The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.5.2012, allowed original application No. 315/2011 to the limited extent, and rejected original application No. 296/2010. It thereafter, rejected both the review applications. Shri T.C. Gupta (the applicant) was recruited in the Income Tax Department as Direct Recruit Inspector of Income Tax in the year 1979. After undergoing selection as a departmental candidate, he qualified the departmental examination for the post of Income Tax Officer, and was promoted in the year 1990. In the year 2001, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), and in the year 2006, he was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT). The dispute in the original applications, giving rise to these writ petitions, relate to the Annual Confidential Reports (for short, 'ACR') and Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (for short, 'APAR') for the year 2007 -08. Whereas in original application No. 296/2010, the applicant prayed for quashing the order dated 25.7.2010 communicated vide letter dated 30.7.2010, and the order dated 6.8.2008, communicating the ACR for the year 2007 -08, and for a prayer to upgrade the ACR, by expunging the assessed 'Good', and for restraining the respondents from acting on the Secret Note, and also not to consider the same for any adverse action; to ignore the issues considered by the CCIT, while deciding the representation against the secret note, in original application No. 315/2011, the applicant had prayed for quashing the orders, by which he was assessed as 'Good' for first eight months and 'Below Average' for last four months. The applicant further prayed for setting aside the orders dated 23.7.2010 communicated on 30.7.2010, in respect of ACR for the periods from 1.4.2008 to 5.8.2008; from 6.8.2008 to 9.11.2008, and from 22.1.2010 to 28.1.2010, communicated vide letter dated 13.4.2010. He also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.7.2010, communicated vide letter dated 4.8.2010, and communicated APAR from 10.11.2008 to 31.3.2009. He also prayed for upgrading the ACR/APAR for the Financial Year 2008 -2009, by expunging the assessed 'Good' and 'Below Average' for the year 2008 -2009, and not to take any despiteful action against the applicant.
(3.) THE Tribunal considered the facts of the case, with reference to the Office Memorandum dated 16.2.2009 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (for short, DOP & T), and the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, : (2008) 8 SCC 725, and held that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the assessment recorded by the Reporting or the Reviewing Officers, in respect of any of the periods or broken periods of reporting in any ACRs of a government servant. The Tribunal can neither upgrade nor downgrade any grading, which has been awarded. There was no irregularity committed by the respondents, in respect of the rating of 'Good' given by the Reporting Officer, Additional DIT (CIB), Jodhpur to the applicant in his ACR format. Even if the belated downgrading of his rating as 'Below Average' by the Reviewing Officer on 20.10.2009 is discarded as being late, and being hit by the time period prescribed in the DOP & T Circular, his rating as 'Good' would still stand. For the two earlier broken periods of the same year, the ACRs were recorded in time, as the applicant had filled up and supplied only one ACR format, in respect of the full year, instead of three ACR formats for the three broken periods.;