, V HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUJRE BILASPUR W,P.N0. :7, («)0 N Patra S/o Sr1l Inspector Cenfral g B11aspur — (09.) Resgondegts W/ ..v \lxkaM Union of India}, i hx - Through The 1‘ ‘ ‘ ; - . ' Government _ Mmlstry of Chief Commiés‘ioner,‘ _ Central Exmse i New Central ‘-‘ ” Scheme, Jaipnr. ‘ Commlssroner Central Exc1se W’Ralpur. _ V Commissioner, Central Excise, - Palace, Indore. ‘ WRIT PETITIVQNU/A 226. l 2‘ 7 OF THE L 1 Lljiarticul‘ars:0fthe Petitioner ‘ r1 ‘ As per causetitle.‘ I L 2. Partlculars of the Resgondent ' V ‘ " As per cause t1tle V L 1 CHHATTISGARH AT ‘ I ’ 12004 / H S C Patla Aged about 43 years Exclse Range Champa, Dlst - V Secfetary, ‘ oflndla, ' I Fmance New Delhi g f i Revenue Bmldmg i L ‘ l Statute Cncle, § E : C1v11 Lmes I : i f Manik’Bagh' f ,l V g CONSTITUTION OF INHIA j, V HIGH COURT OF CRH HHATTISGA AT BU ILASPR WRIT PETITON I NO 72 60/004 PTITIOENER E N. Pta ar Versus Es ENTs nin f di and others OR RDE o consideraton . Ff i N.K.Agarw‘ udge HE 1 h MUJ ON’BL SRI I.._9DDUSI,_ 01 0 sal- - 2 t for Pos z R‘ ONb Uo o Ina 1 g1 J — 9—201 x/g Judge g —o 10 Rim HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 7j60/2004 PETITIONER N . Patfa Versus Union of India and others I r :RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SHRI I M UDDUSI 8a m HON’BLE SHRI N K AGARWAL JJ PRESENT - Shr1 P S Koshy, Advocate for the petltloner Shr1 Bhlsma Klngar Advocate for the respondents ORDER ( L~§;2010) Per N K Agrawal, J i 1m The Instant petition under Article 226/227 of the. Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17—‘ 11-2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunalh g 70/2002. bench ,Jabalpur (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3 Facts of the case 1n brlef are that the petitioner has been g working in the Central Exc1se Department Since 1986 At the g time of filing of the writ petition he was posted as Inspector Central Exc1se at Range Champa Distt Bilaspur During the 1: .5 period from 1994 1999 the petitioner was posted as Inspector Central Exc1se in the D1Vis10na1 Technical Branch g of Central Exc1se D1Vis10n I Bhilai The petitioner was looking after miscellaneous nature of technical works As per t established office norms Superintendent (Tech) 1s . immediate Superv1sory Officer (Gazetted) in charge of the D1V1s1ona1 Technical Branch and all files of technical branch were being put up to the Superintendent (Tech) by the petitioner and his all other colleagues The Superintendent (Tech ) 1s the immediate superwsory officer (Gazetted) and 1s reporting officer of ACRs of the petitioner All of a sudden Shr1 Shrawan Kumar who was the DIV1s10na1 Officer issued an order on 31 12 1996 directing that the petitioner Will E - ; work directly under him and he will put up all the tiles directly to him and not through the Superintendent (Tech) The petitloner was communlcated adverse entrles 1n hls ACR ‘ ifor 1996 97 by the Jomt Commissmner (P 85 V) Central , .Exc1se, Ralpur under h1s letter No. C No II (a)5 CON/ACR/ 97/3075 dated 20—9—1999 (Annexure P-2), which reads as under — “The Overall Assessment 1s “JUST ADEQUATE” Column No. 7(a) Very Poor temperament which Other has adverse bearing on the Observations:— performance No other factor ‘ noticed” The representation submitted by the petitioner dated 8—3- ' 2000 was dismlssed by the Commisswner Central EXCise ‘J Raipur v1de its order dated 2O 3 2001 (Annexure —1) affirming the above entries in the ACR. The petitioner? thereafter preferred O.A. No. 70/2002 before the Tribunal? inter alia claiming for quashing the order dated 20-3-2001 (Annexure A—l) whereby the representation of the petitioner ' for expunging the adverse remarks in his Annual ‘- ‘ Confidential Report for 1996 97 recorded by Shr1 Shrawan ‘ Kumar has been reJected and further directlon to the l respondents to hold a rev1ew DPC for grant of first financial upgradation under ACP and if the applicant is found eligible he should be given the same from the due date w1th alli' consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with interest @ 1‘2 per annum. The Tribunal dismissed the petitionvide order dated 17—1 1- 2003. Learned Tribunal has given reasons in para 9 ‘of its; order which is quoted hereinbelow:- “9. Admittedly Shri Shrawan Kumar, ‘Assi‘stanti Commissioner, Central Excise, Divn. I, Bhilaj was the"g ; Part III Column No. 5. He does not have disciplined Discipline behaviour. He has once ' instigated the staff members and misbehaved and threatened the senior officers. He is indisciplined. ....... “POOR” reporting officer of the service of the applicant. Though the applicant has made some malafides against the said officer he has not made him as one of the respondents in ' ‘the present Original Application. %We have perused the ACR submitted by the respondents. In the ACRs we do h not find any mistake or illegality or violation of the assess the semees of the applicant We have to dec1de only whether the procedure followed by the respondents is proper or not When the applicant has challenged the impugned order of the appellate authority, the applicant has not made out any case to annul the order passed by ' the Comm1ss1oner i.e. the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority, has considered. all the aspects and passed the reasoned and considered order taking all the aspects of the case.” Shri P S Koshy, learned counsel for the petitioner ‘ vehemently argued that O A No 68/2002 filed by one Gopal _ Prasad Joshi on identlcal facts was allowed by the Tribunal V1de its order dated 29th July, 2004 The petitlon preferred thereagainst by the respondents bearing W P (S ) No 4958/2004 was dlsmissed by th1s Court Vlde order 6th May 2005 affirming the order of the Tribunal, whereas the instant k petition was dismissed by the Tribunal which is per se illegal and the order passed by the Tribunal deserVes to be set asidej On the other hand, Shri Bhisrna Kingar, learned counsel ’appearing for the respondents would contend that although case of Gopal Prasad JoShi, but in the said case, the Joshi did not work directly under Shri ShraWan Kumar, Divisional Officer for a period of 90 days allowed the Original application and therefore the facts of both the cases are not identlcal and the order impugned 1s a reasoned order wh1ch V deserves to be upheld x procedure to be followed We are not the authority to ‘ the facts in the instant case are somewhat similar to the : Tribunal after coming to a Conclusion that Gopal Prasad ' wwwsmwmmi; iii rrie r*‘ if * We have heard learned counsel for the partles and perused the record ‘In case of Gopal Prasad Josh1 (W P S No 4958/2004) thls ‘Court Wh11e dlsmlssmg the petltlon preferred by the respondents herem has observed 1n para 5 of the order as under -' “In View of the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Vinay Harit, learned counsel for the petitioner, we called upon Mr. Harit to produce before us the ACRs of the respondent No. 2 for different’years only for the purpose of finding out as to Whether the adverse V entries made by Shri Shrawan Kumar ‘were consistent with the entries made by other reporting officers and ‘- reviewing officer in the ACRs of respondent No. 2 in ‘ other years and Mr. Harit has produced before us the ACRs of respondent No. '2. The adverse entries which ‘ were made by Shri Shrawan Kumar in the ACRs of ; respondent No. 2 for the period 1—4—1996 to 31—3—1997 were to the following effect: “cmum‘n No. 5: He is, not disciplined. He is very Discipline argumentative and does ‘ unnecessary things. Once he r instigated the staff and: misbehaved with . senior _, officers. He is indisciplined. .. “POOR” Column No 7(a) He has very poor temperament Other Observatr— which has adverse bearing on I ons, if anyz- his work and performance None of the other factors? noticed.” f But'we rind that in the ACRs for the period 1.4.1995 to 31—3—1996 during which he was posted as Inspector in: Central EXCise Headquarter Raipur' and Inspector (Revrew), Office of the Comm1ss1oner Central Excise, Raipur the reporting officer has 1nd1cated against column No 5 relatlng to d1sc1p11ne that the respondent No 2 was a very submrsswe and discrplmed officer and has graded t r «mmmmwmmm.m ‘ him as “VERY GOOD” and the reviewing officer Assistant Comm1ss10ner Central EXCIse 85 Customs (Audlt), HQ ,_ Commlssmnarate Ralpur as agreed W1th the reportmg ; offlcer and has glven the respondent No 2 on over all assessment of performance and qua11t1es as “VERY QOOD”. Thus, for the 1mmed1ate1y succeedmg perlod 1-4- 1996 to 31-3—1997 if any adverse entry was to be made é against respondent No 2 that he vrias not disciplined or that he had instlgated the staff or misbehaved w1th senior officers or that he was 1nd1sc1p11ned or that he had very poor temperament Whlch has adverse bearmg on his work and performance such adverse entrles should be - r’based on some objective assessment of the general character or behav1our of the respondent No 2 1n the , discharge of h1s dunes and should not be influenced by subjective consider‘ations of the Reporting or the viewing Officer. The decision of the Supreme Court in y ;L. Butail vs. Union of India 86 others (1970)2SCC 876) doesnot apply to the facts of this case and this is not a fit § case in which we should in exercise of our extra ordinary or supervisory jurisdiction interfere with‘the impugned order of the Centr’élAdministrative Tribunal under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.” We have perused the ACRs of the petitioner for the period 1994-95 and 1995-96 and we find that in the ACR for the period l 4 1994 to 31 3 1995 the period durmg which the petitioner was posted as Inspector Central EXCise Bilaspur Range as well as Technical Branch Bhilai-II, the reporting officer has indicated against. Column Nof 5 relating to discipline that the petitioner hasmaintained nice discipline andis graded him as “very good” and the reviewing officer as agreed with the reporting officer and has given overall ’ assessment of performance and qualities as “very good”. For the period 1995—96 also, the overall assessment of - i performance and qualities was graded as “very good“. Thus for the immediate succeeding year ’1—4-1996 to 31-3-1997, if e . ‘ based on some objective assessment of the 3 general character or behaviour of the petitioner in the r discharge of his duties and should not be infiuenced by subjective considerations of the Reporting or the Reviewing Officer, as held by this Court in Gopal Prasad Joshi’s case (WPS No. 4958/2004). Learned Tribunal has passed above order without going into i the above aspect of the matter. It is also necessary when the Tribunal has allowedthe petition of Gopal Prasad who is a similarly situated employee. Therefore, we are of the View that the matter deserves to be remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh. For the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The order 2 impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the _ Tribunal to decide the original application afresh in the light ‘ of the observations made by this Court on its own merits. \ any adverse entry was to be made against the petitioner that ' he was not dlsc1phned or that he had 1nst1gated the staff or mlsbehaved w1th senior officers or that he was 1nd1sc1p11ned or that he had very poor temperament which has adverse f bear1ng on his work and performance, such adverse entries i should be ‘ . No order as to costs. Sdl- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi I Judge N.K. Agarwal \\ Judge ‘