Original Application No. 86 of 2010. Case: D.K. Rathor Vs Controller and Auditor General of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
|Original Application No. 86 of 2010
|For Appellant: Vijay Tripathi, Advocate and For Respondents: M.K. Sharma, Advocate
|M. Kanthaiah, Member (J) and G.P. Singhal, Member (Ad.)
|July 25, 2014
|Central Administrative Tribunal
M. Kanthaiah, Member (J)
The applicant has filed this Original Application questioning the validity of the adverse remarks communicated by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 29.03.2007 (Annexure A-1) and also rejection order dated 04.08.2008 (Annexure A-2) issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal and non-est and consequently direct the respondents to allow the representation of the applicant dated 25.04.2008 (Annexure A-7) seeking for expunction of adverse remarks.
The respondents have filed reply-affidavit, denying the claim of the applicant stating that the impugned orders are in accordance with rules and no justified reasons are there to seek interference of the Tribunal.
The applicant also filed Rejoinder denying the stand taken by the respondents.
Heard both sides.
The point for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Sr. Accounts Officer, during reporting period from 12.10.2004 to 17.01.2005, submitted his self appraisal and upon which the reporting officer completed the reporting of the A.C.R. and reviewing officer also reviewed such officer, where certain adverse remarks are made. Anexure-A-4 is the copy of A.C.R. of the applicant for the period from 12.10.2004 to 17.01.2005. Basing on the performance of work recorded by the applicant in part II, the reporting officer made entries in Part III, whereas Part IV related to remarks of the Reviewing Officer. Admittedly the reporting officer made adverse entries in respect of Part III A-1, Part III B-5, Part III B-6(i), Part-III B-8, Part III C-2 and Part III 'C-4(b) and the reviewing authority confirmed such adverse remarks in his remarks.
When such adverse remarks have been communicated to the applicant vide proceeding dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure A-5), the applicant submitted his representation dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure A-6), to the 2nd respondent seeking for expunging such adverse remarks. On consideration of such representation, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2007 (Annexure A-1), wherein he expunged Part III-C, modified Part-III-C and Part-III-B into 'Average' from 'Poor' and replaced Part III B with 'fair', and in respect of Part III A and Part III B of adverse remarks have not been changed. On perusal of such order it is clear that no other reasons are assigned either for continuing or for modified part of ACR in respect of...
To continue readingRequest your trial