TARAPADA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the a. T. Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :"a) To direct the respondent to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned :- i) Memorandum dated 22. 1. 2002 and 14. 1. 2003, being Annexures 'a-4' and 'a-7' respectively hereof ; ii) Memorandums dated 20. 5. 2002 and 16. 4. 2003, being Annexures 'a-6' and 'a-9' respectively here'of; b) To direct the respondents to produce the entire records of the case before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication of the points at issue ; c) And to pass such further or other order or orders and/or direction or directions as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper. "

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is working as assistant Director. On 14. 5. 1998, the applicant was transferred on reversion to the post of Data Processing Assistant Gr. A. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14. 5. 1998, he approached this Tribunal in OA 613/1998. The said oa was disposed of vide order dated 21. 3. 2001. Against the said order of this tribunal dated 21. 3. 2001, he filed an RA 11/2001, the same was rejected on 23. 4. 2001. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant approached the high Court in W. P. C. T. No. 366/2001. The said writ petition is pending at the high Court. Due to ventilating the grievances before the Hon'ble Courts by the applicant, the authorities concerned became very much vindictive towards the applicant and they started issuing one after one adverse remarks against the applicant. Keeping in mind that the proceedings are pending before the courts, the fourth respondent, i. e. , the Director have issued memo dated 7. 9. 2000 intimating that 'he is not reliable'. The said remark was entered in the ACR for the year 1998-99. The applicant submitted his representation dated 30. 9. 2002 to expunge the adverse entries. The applicant did not receive any order from the respondents. Earlier to issuing the impugned order, there was no warning and/or show cause notice to the applicant. Hence the impugned ' order of adverse entries was illegal. Again for the year 2000-2001, the same kind of adverse entries were made against which the applicant has referred a representation dated 30. 1. 2002 to expunge the adverse remarks. The respondents have rejected his representation vide order dated 20. 5. 2002. Again the applicant was intimated vide memo dated 14. 1. 2003 that the same kind of adverse entries were made against him in the ACR for the year 2001-02, against which the applicant has referred a detailed representation dated 11. 2. 2003 to expunge the adverse remarks. The respondents have rejected his representation vide order dated 16. 4. 2003. Being aggrieved by the said order, applicant has filed the present OA challenging the orders dated 20. 5. 2002 and dated 16. 4. 2003. on the ground that the impugned action of the respondents is illegal without following the guidelines in respect of writing acrs. As the applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste community, the respondents are harassing and humiliating the applicant only to curtail the rights of the applicant, without following the guidelines in respect of issuance of adverse remarks. Hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the adverse remarks in ACRs are directed to be expunged.

(3.) Per contra, the respondents have filed detailed reply denying the averments made by the applicant in OA. They have specifically denied that there was no mala fide against the applicant. The respondents have issued the orders on the basis of performance and assessment. The reporting officer has reported the adverse remarks and the accepting officer has accepted the same. The representations submitted by the applicant were properly considered and rejected. They have stated that the applicant was transferred as Assistant director on short-term adhoc basis on deputation on 29. 4. 2003. Earlier the applicant was working as Junior Investigator. He was sent on deputation twice. Firstly at Indian Tourism, Imphal during the period 1986-1991 and secondly at Indian Tourism, Calcutta during the period 1993-1998. The respondents have denied that the applicant has been performing his duties as an Assistant Director for more than 14 and half years. The applicant has already been issued the order terminating his deputation period but the applicant has not accepted the order of termination and by virtue of pending court cases, the applicant is still continuing in the post of Assistant Director. The applicant has not given the benefit of ACP Scheme is also denied as baseless. The applicant is not entitled to the benefit of ACP as per the rules. The period of deputation was expired on 14. 5. 1998, the deputation cannot be extended beyond five years as per the DOP and T Rules. Pending of the litigation of the applicant is not the reason for issuing the adverse entries in the ACRs. The applicant has not made out a case for grant of relief and is liable to be dismissed.