TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants writ petition, remits promotion matter to DPC, excludes uncommunicated 'good' remarks.</h1> The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remitted the matter back to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Apex Court decision in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors.2. Non-communication of adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).3. Malice alleged against a respondent.4. Procedure adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).5. Tribunal's failure to address relevant legal questions.6. Judicial review of administrative actions.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Apex Court Decision in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors.:The primary issue in this case was whether the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. was applicable. The court noted that the Apex Court had held that even downgrading from 'very good' to 'good' should be communicated to the employee, allowing them to make a representation. This principle was relevant to the petitioner's claim that non-communication of his downgraded ACRs affected his promotion prospects.2. Non-communication of Adverse Remarks in the ACR:The petitioner argued that his ACRs, which were downgraded from 'very good' to 'good', were not communicated to him, violating Rule 9 of the CPWD Service Manual. The court acknowledged that the petitioner's ACRs for the years 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1995-96 were marked 'good' without communication, which was necessary to prevent detriment to his service prospects.3. Malice Alleged Against a Respondent:The petitioner alleged malice against respondent No. 7, claiming that this was not considered by the Tribunal. The court did not delve deeply into this issue but noted its presence in the petitioner's original application.4. Procedure Adopted by the DPC:The court criticized the Tribunal's acceptance of the DPC's procedure, which relied solely on ACRs without written exams or interviews. The DPC's grading was based on ACRs, but the court found that the DPC should have re-evaluated the petitioner's case without the uncommunicated 'good' remarks, following the Apex Court's guidance.5. Tribunal's Failure to Address Relevant Legal Questions:The Tribunal failed to address whether the non-communication of downgraded ACRs, as required by the Apex Court's decision and CPWD rules, invalidated the DPC's decision. The Tribunal incorrectly focused on whether the DPC's rating was correct rather than the legality of the non-communication.6. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions:The court emphasized that judicial review is warranted when an authority ignores relevant facts or considers irrelevant ones. The Tribunal's failure to remand the matter to the DPC for reconsideration, ignoring the 'good' remarks, was a significant error. The court cited various judgments reinforcing that uncommunicated adverse records cannot be considered by the authority.Conclusion:The writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the DPC for fresh consideration of the petitioner's promotion, excluding the uncommunicated 'good' remarks. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
