h 1 z ? ~§Hi$H caum’ OF cHHAWSQARH A? énAsFura elvxsIaN BENCH: 1 HON‘BLE 5H'Ri E.M.QUDDUSI é HON‘BLE 5HRf FRASHANT KUMAR :‘ME5HRA J’J. WRET WTiTiON (53 Mr. Kis'hore Shrivasfava, 5r. Ad‘voccri‘e wifh Mr. Ashish S'hrivasfava & Mr. Sanjay Tammkar, Advocafes for The peTiTioner. f‘Ar‘s‘ Faazia Mirza, Assisfawf SGHch‘w 66mm! f0? “hiya raswridan‘rs. ORAL JUDéMEN-F {?assgd an 13’” Juana 2919) iff‘. Quddusi. i: L Heard learned counsei for The parfies’ 2. Ey means of fhis wr-i? pe‘i’ifion 1412 pefiTioner has c‘naHenged fhe impugned order dcn‘ed' 08.02.2008 passed by The Cenfmi Adminisfm‘rive Tribunai in GA. No,90/ZO(36 Ihi’er alia with o‘i’her prayers whisk are quefed‘ as under:— “10.2. This Hon‘bie CourT may kindiy be pieased To se'r aside The impugned order dafed 08.02.2008 passed by learned Tribunal and aifow ihe appiicaiion filed by 'ihe pe‘liiioner befare "rhe TribLinal growling approprial'e relief se‘h‘ing aside ihe remarks and expunging The en‘iire proceedings made by Ceniral Vigilance Cammission as pseudo accepi’ing aufhoriiy in ihe ACR of ihe pe'lil'io‘ner for 'ihe period from 0092002 To 31.03.2003 in The inleresi' of jusiioe. 10.3. This Hon’ble Cour‘l may fur‘iher be pleased To Command ihe responden'i‘s To accord proper grading in The ,ACR of The peih‘ioner for The year 2002-03 commensura‘l’e i0 pe‘ii'iioner’s performance by duly upgrading ihe same." 3. Briei fac‘l's of The case are 'Thai' The pei'i'fioner is fhe member of The" Tndian Adminisfra'five Services. .On 1.4.2002 The pe‘fi‘iioner was sen? on depu‘raiion To HMT Limiied, Bangalore as Chief Vigilance Officer and he ‘ /2 PWTTGNE? T. Radhakr-ishnan §E§FONDENT5 Vs Union of indie 5} Pre$ém-': _ 11,9 remained fhere up'i'o .Tuiy, 2005. According f0 The peh‘fioner The Cemrdi Vigiiance Cemmissioner (for brevify ‘CVC’) as ‘Accep‘ring Aufhcr'i‘fy‘ has in Ruie 2 (ff) (a) <3: (a) respecfiveiy of: The A“ Tndia Services (C‘onfidenfiai Eaiis) Rubs, 1970. which are qum‘ed as under:— “Reporfing Aufhoriify" means such aufhorify or au‘rharifies supervising fhe performance of The member of The Service vapor-“fed uporw as may be specificaiiy empowered in This behaif by The $avernmen‘r. “Reviewiwg Awhorgi‘ryi‘ means aufhorify or au+horifies supervising fhe performance of The repor'ring aufhorifyras may be spegificaiiy “AccepTing Aufhorify" means such auThoriTy or auThoriTies supervising The performance of The reviewing auThoriTy as may be empowered in This behaif by The Government ‘specificaiiy empowered in This behalf by The Government AccepTing AuThoriTy of The peTiTioner. 6. TT islaiso necessary To men‘Tion ThaT The CVC has made Toiiowing remarks, in The annuai confidenTiai reporT of The peTiTianer for The period 3.9.2002 To $322003:— “i can oniv commen‘r fhaf The CVC) insfead of doing wha‘rever he arm wh‘h The, availabie resources is concerned more abouf wha’r he does no? have. He may have To improve his affimde To Show omv fangibie resuHs in The sensifive areas of viaiiance." . Learnecf Senior Counsei for The peTiTioner has aiso drown 'aTTenTion o This CourT Towards The ieTTer aaTed 02.05.2005 (Annexure P-3) addressed To The peTiTioner, subjecT of which is “communicaTion of adverse remarks-regarding" and in i3ara-2 Thereof if has been menTioned ThaT The above remarks are broughT To your noTice. You may) if you wish, represenT againsf The above remark. Since The subjecT of ieTTer daTed 2.6.2OOE (Annexure P-3) was communicaTion of adverse remarkss Therefore, according To iearned Senior Counsel for The peTiTionerl iT should have been TreaTed as adverse remarks. Accordinq To learned AssisTanT SoliciTor General of India for The respondenTs The remark is noT adverse one and is advisory only. Since The represenTaTion of The peTiTioner is pending and ThaT has been kepT on record by The respondenTs, as informed by learned AssisTanT SoliciTor General of India. in our opinion The represenTaTion should be disposed of by The decision making auThoriTy, deciding as To wheTher The remark communicaTed To The peTiTioner is advisory in naTure or iT is an adverse remark and if iT is TreaTed as adverse remark, Then wheTher iT is To be expunged or should remain in The ACR of The peTiTioner. Therefore we disnose of This wriT peTiTion in The following manner: i. RepresenTaTion of The peTiTioner aiong wiTh record shall be forwarded To The compeTenT auThoriTy under The rules 'of business of The GovernmenT who will Take a decision in The lighT of The observaTions made above, The compeTenT auThoriTy shall also decide as To wheTher The remarks made bv The €VC were made by The Acceo‘i ina auThoriTv‘ or noT. f if: case, in ‘fhe mewn‘i‘m»z, {he Daparfmen'mi Promo‘i’ion Commi‘f'ree (:DW} is Plaid and fhe represen‘mfion remains undecic’ieci, fha Dapcxr‘fmem‘ai Promofior! Commi‘f‘ree may consider The represema'rion and fake u decision af its own [avei‘ Order impugned da’red 08.02.2008 passed §3y fhe Cammi Administra'rive Tribumi smnds superceciraci by fhis amian No arder‘ as +0 casB. Sdl- . rifm’ E Sdl- r I.M.Quddusi Judge Prashant Kumar Mimn’a Judge