UMMED SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in this OA was working as a Superintendent in the Customs and Central Excise department since 23 -9 -2002. The grievance of the applicant is that during the period between 1 -4 -2003 to 31 -3 -2004, his Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter in short as ACR) was recorded by the reporting officer as Good, but his reviewing officer, Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs had given him an overall grading just adequate resulting in rejection of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme framed by the Government of India. The applicant alleges that at the relevant point of time, even the grading given to him just adequate was not treated as a adverse remarks, but had become relevant only when MACP Scheme was introduced in the year 2009 wherein benchmark of Good was required for an employee of the grade of the applicant to become eligible for financial upgradation. The applicant made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs vide letter dated 16 -12 -2010 for ventilating his grievances relating to the MACP based on his ACR remarks, but without any positive result. His representation was rejected by way of Annexure A -1 letter. The applicant challenges Annexure A -1 on the ground that the remarks of just adequate in the ACR for the relevant period is illegal, arbitrary and passed without any application of mind, not based on any document on record and passed without any evaluation of overall performance of the applicant for the relevant period. According to the applicant, just adequate remark was written by the reviewing officer purely based on the subjective assessment made by that officer. According to him, the reporting officer had given him grading Good, which was down graded by the reviewing officer based on certain observations like indiscipline, temperamental problems and difficulties in getting along with colleagues, sub -ordinates and superiors. The applicant states that such observations have neither been noted by the reporting officer nor was there any occasion for issuing a warning nor had brought such instances to the notice of the applicant. It is further alleged that the reviewing officer had no occasion for observing the work of the applicant and had no occasion to assess the performance of the applicant. For this reason, the applicant seeks the relief of quashing and setting aside the decision dated 3 -5 -2011 confirming the remark of just adequate in the ACR of the applicant for the period between 2003 -04 and to hold that overall remark Good was issued by the reporting officer to be upheld. Alternatively, the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned order communicated to him vide letter dated 3 -5 -2011 and to direct the respondents to ensure that the representation of the applicant against the remark of just adequate be placed before the then Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad to decide whether the remark just adequate is to be confirmed in the ACR of the applicant. The applicant further prays for directing the respondents to hold the meeting of screening committee as envisaged under the MACP Scheme to consider the case of the applicant for financial upgradation on the basis of remark just adequate having been set aside in the ACR.

(2.) IN the reply, the respondents contended that the reviewing officers assessment that the applicant be graded only just adequate is quite justified in view of the reasons stated in the remark written by the reviewing officer in the ACR. The respondents further contend that at the material time, the remark just adequate was not communicated to the official as it was not to be treated as adverse remark and that the ACR was communicated to the applicant vide office letter dated 4 -11 -2010 against which the applicant made a representation dated 16 -12 -2010. The respondents further contend that the representation dated 16 -12 -2010 was considered by the Commissioner who has confirmed the grading given by the reviewing officer. According to the respondents, ACR was reviewed on the basis of the overall performance of his work which would be appraised by another officer to ensure full appreciation of facts with an unbiased mind. The entry just adequate cannot be considered as adverse entry had and hence, it was not required to be communicated because such an entry never played any adverse role in promotion of the applicant to his present post i.e. Superintendent of Customs. The respondents further contend that the reviewing officer is free to make his remarks on a point not even mentioned by the reporting officer, which only strengthen the basic theme of analyzing/appraisal by two independent officers. It is not true that remark of reviewing officer just adequate having been made only in the two consecutive reported period relevant to this case alone because during the period of 2011 -12 also the applicant was graded just adequate by another reviewing officer and the representation made by the applicant in this regard is pending for finalization. The argument of the applicant that the reporting officer could have assessed him better than the reviewing officer is not sustainable. For these reasons, the respondents pray for dismissal of the OA, as lacking in merit.

(3.) THE points arising for consideration in this case are: