Case Note & Summary
The Union of India and other petitioners challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dated 09/07/2015, which allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent, Vikas Chand Chaturvedi. The respondent, while working as a Director in the Forward Markets Commission, Mumbai, had filed the OA aggrieved by the rejection of his representation against below-benchmark gradings in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004, and by the denial of promotion as a consequence. The respondent's case was that for the period of three years when he worked as an Under Secretary in the Department of Atomic Energy from 15/03/2001, the Reporting Officer had rated him as 'Very Good' in the ACRs, but the Reviewing Officer downgraded his ACR to 'Average'. He was overlooked for promotion in the select list of 2006 by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 12/09/2006. The Competent Authority by order dated 11/02/2011 informed the respondent that the final grading of 'Average' in the ACRs was retained. The respondent also impugned the order dated 12/09/2011 by which the petitioners informed him that his request for review of the decision for promotion could not be agreed to. The Tribunal allowed the OA, setting aside the downgraded ACRs and directing the petitioners to consider the respondent for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with consequential benefits. The High Court, in its judgment, held that the downgrading of ACR gradings by the Reviewing Officer without communicating the adverse remarks to the employee was violative of principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the respondent had made representations against the downgrading, but the Competent Authority merely stated that the grading was retained without giving any reasons. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order and directed the petitioners to consider the respondent for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, with consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay and seniority, but without actual arrears of pay. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Annual Confidential Report - Downgrading of Grading - Communication of Adverse Remarks - The downgrading of ACR gradings by the Reviewing Officer without communicating the adverse remarks to the employee is violative of principles of natural justice - The employee is entitled to be heard before adverse remarks are recorded - The Tribunal's order setting aside the downgraded ACRs and directing consideration for promotion with consequential benefits was upheld (Paras 1-17).
B) Service Law - Promotion - Departmental Promotion Committee - Review of ACRs - The DPC must consider the ACRs as they stood before the downgrading if the downgrading is set aside - The employee is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted - Consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay and seniority are to be granted (Paras 10-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the downgrading of ACR gradings by the Reviewing Officer without communicating the adverse remarks to the employee is violative of principles of natural justice, and whether the employee is entitled to promotion with consequential benefits.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court directed the petitioners to consider the respondent for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, with consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay and seniority, but without actual arrears of pay.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- communication of adverse remarks
- downgrading of ACR
- promotion
- review by DPC
- speaking order
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (01) 47
WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2017
SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, ACTING C.J., M.S.KARNIK, J.
Mr.Anil Singh ASG a/w Mrs.Neeta Masurkar, Ms.Geetika Gandhi & Mr.D.P. Singh i/b Mr.Vinay S. Masurkar, for the Petitioners; Mr.L.S.Shetty a/w Mr.M.M. Nair, Mr.Arnav Misra i/b L.S. Shetty & Associates, for Respondent
Union of India, Through the Secretary Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001; The Secretary Department of Atomic Energy, Anushakti Bhavan, CSM Marg, Mumbai – 400 001; The Chairman Forward Markets Commission, Everest 3rd Floor, 100 Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 002; G.N.Singh Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001
Vikas Chand Chaturvedi, Director/Deputy Secretary, Forward Markets Commission, Everest 3rd Floor, 100 Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 002, Residing at 67 Apartment House, 10th floor, Hydrabad Estate, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400 036
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (Union of India and others) sought to quash and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 09/07/2015 which allowed the respondent's OA and directed consideration for promotion with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The respondent's ACRs for the years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 were downgraded by the Reviewing Officer from 'Very Good' to 'Average' without communication, leading to denial of promotion.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by order dated 09/07/2015 allowed the OA filed by the respondent, setting aside the downgraded ACRs and directing the petitioners to consider the respondent for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with consequential benefits.
Issues
Whether the downgrading of ACR gradings by the Reviewing Officer without communicating the adverse remarks to the employee is violative of principles of natural justice.
Whether the employee is entitled to promotion with consequential benefits after the downgraded ACRs are set aside.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the downgrading of ACRs was done by the Reviewing Officer and the respondent was informed of the final grading; no further communication was required.
Respondent argued that the downgrading was done without any opportunity of hearing and the adverse remarks were not communicated, violating natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The downgrading of ACR gradings by the Reviewing Officer without communicating the adverse remarks to the employee is violative of principles of natural justice. The employee is entitled to be heard before adverse remarks are recorded. Once the downgrading is set aside, the DPC must consider the ACRs as they stood before the downgrading, and the employee is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with consequential benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
The downgrading of ACR gradings by the Reviewing Officer without communicating the adverse remarks to the employee is violative of principles of natural justice.
The employee is entitled to be heard before adverse remarks are recorded.
Procedural History
The respondent filed OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, challenging the rejection of his representation against downgraded ACRs and denial of promotion. The Tribunal allowed the OA on 09/07/2015. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court reserved judgment on 19/12/2017 and pronounced on 10/01/2018, dismissing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
