TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s position is at S.No. 13 in the seniority list whereas the respondents 3 to 6 were at S.No. 14, 16 and 19. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said action on the part of the respondents in promoting the said respondents in supersession of his claim, he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi questioning the said order dated 2nd February, 1998 which was marked as Original Application No. 2389/99 in June, 1999. Two other persons, namely, Mr. R.K. Kakkar and Mr. A.S. Sanyal were also granted promotions. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 14th September, 2000 the petitioner's Original Application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. A review application was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by an order dated 25th October, 2000. 5. The short question which has been raised in this writ petition is that in view of the fact that a bench mark of three 'very good' within a period of five years was required for the purposes of promotion having regard to the purported fall in standard it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to communicate the same to the petitioner pursuant to or in furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: "We need to explain these observations of the High Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry is required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required to be communicated. As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like failing from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All that is required by the authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one-time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97 97-98 1 . T.S. Garg 25.10.42 Good Good Good V.G. Good V.G. Good 2. Y.S. Sardar 28.03.42 O.S. O.S. V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. 3. N.N. Chpal Katti 01.11.42 V.G. Good V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. 4. G.K. Kaura 03.01.50 V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. O.S. 5. R.K. Kakkar 01.08.51 O.S. O.S. O.S. O.S. V.G. O.S. 6. A. Sanyal 01.11.40 O.S. V.G. V.G. V.G/O.S. V.G. V.G./O.S. O.S. 7. S.C. Bhatia 04.05.46 Good Good V.G. V.G. O.S. O.S. V.G. 12. The learned Tribunal perused the general categorisation made in the ACRs. It further went through the purported relevant reports for the DPC. It was held: "The relevant reports for the DPC would be of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of the petitioner's case again ignoring the remarks 'good' and on the basis of the other available remarks. This position stands settled by various judgments of the Supreme Court. 14. It is now trite that a bad record, if not communicated, the effect thereof would be that the same cannot be taken into consideration by the appropriate authority. (See: Karnail Singh v. The State of Punjab and Anr. reported in JT 1994 (6) SC 583). 15. In Sri M.A. Rajasekhar v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. , the Apex Court has held: "It was found that his integrity was not doubted and his work also in all those respects was found to be satisfactory. Under those circumstances, the remark that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma" must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He should be given an opportunity in the cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given. Even when he acted in dilemma and lacked objectivity, in such circumstances, he must be guided by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by him; misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact. Let me give two examples. The fact may be either physical, something which existed or occurred or did not, or it may be mental, an opinion. Suppose that, contrary to the Secretary of State's belief, it was the fact that there was in the area of the authority adequate school accommodation for the pupils to be educated, and the Secretary of State acted under the section believing that there was not. If it were plainly established that the Secretary of State was mistaken, I do not think that he could substantiate the lawfulness of his direction under this section. Now, more closely to the facts of this case, take a matter of expert professional opinion. Suppose that, contrary to the understanding of the Secretary of State, there does in fact exist a respectable body of professional or expert opinion to the effect that the selection procedures for school entry proposed are adequate and acceptable. If that body of opinion be proved to exist, and if that body of opinion proves to be available both to the authority and to the Secretary of State, then again I would have thought it quite impossible for the Secr....