Raj Kumar Kapoor v. UOI

V.K.JAIN, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J JANUARY 09, 2012 bg

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 09.01.2012 + W.P.(C) 129/2012 RAJ KUMAR KAPOOR …. Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA …. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person For the Respondents : Mr Sunil Kumar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN (ORAL) 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.09.2009, whereby Original Application No. 2657/2010 filed by him was dismissed. 2. The petitioner, while working as Deputy Director with National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), in the Ministry of Planning, Department of Statistics, Government of India, was given ACR grading for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, which were below the benchmark prescribed for promotion to the next higher post of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG). The aforesaid gradings, however, were not communicated to the petitioner. He was granted ad hoc promotion as JAG on 01.04.2004. When the batch mates and juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the post of JAG on regular basis and the petitioner was ignored, he made a representation to the Cadre Controlling Authority on 11.01.2008 against his supersession. However, there was no response to the representation made by him though he was again given ad hoc promotion to the post of JAG on 15.06.2007. The batch mates and the juniors of the petitioner were appointed to the post of Non-Functional Selection Cadre (NFSC) on 01.08.2007 w.e.f. 29.11.2006, while claim of the petitioner to the aforesaid post was ignored. In reply to the representation made by him on 11.01.2008, the petitioner was informed that he was considered for vacancies for the year 2004-05, but was not found fit. The petitioner filed Original Application No.2380/2008 before the Tribunal which directed the respondents to communicate all the "below the benchmark" ACRs to the petitioner and also gave him an opportunity to make a representation in respect of those ACRs. It was also directed if the gradings given to the petitioner were improved, a review DPC would be held to consider his claim for promotion. The respondent, in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, conveyed observations of the Reporting Officer in his ACRs for the year 2000-01 and 2001- 02. The aforesaid decision of the respondent was challenged in Original Application No. 2657/2010 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 22.09.2011. 3. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Reporting Officer commented in the following terms of the representation made by the petitioner:- "RO says that many a times Sh. Kapoor delayed submission of cases; has notings on the files were causal without application of mind, his knowledge of rules was not to the mark, he was unable to handle his subordinates and give them adequate advice. RO has also claimed that normally Sh. Kapoor was advised verbally but sometimes comments were made in the files submitted by Sh. Kapoor. According to RO the files could not be produced since large number of them have been weeded out by the FOD. The RO has given a list of 16 files which according to him shows careless/casual approach, delay in submission, lack of confidence and officer like quality, non application of mind, poor examination of cases and disobedience on the part of Sh. Kapoor. The RO has also mentioned that Sh. N. Neelakanthan, the then DDG considered as one of the most upright officer has also endorsed the assessment." The Reviewing Authority, whose comments were also called on the representation, however, stated as under:- "I have gone through the Representation of Shri R.K. Kapoor EX-ISS (JAG) officer carefully. At this point in time, I do not have access to the official records based on which the observations made in his APAR have been recorded and the points he has raised in his representation against the adverse entries, as I have retired from the Post of A