2003 (7) TMI 641 - Tri - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of communication of adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
2. Timeliness of disposal of representation against adverse entries.
3. Alleged discrimination in handling adverse remarks among different Judicial Members.
4. Basis of the adverse entries and whether they were supported by evidence.
5. Authority and practice of writing ACRs for Members of CEGAT.
6. Compliance with instructions regarding the communication of adverse remarks.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of Communication of Adverse Entries in the ACR:
The applicant argued that adverse remarks should have been communicated within one month from the date they were recorded. The adverse entries were recorded on 21-5-2001 but communicated only on 26-12-2001, which is contrary to the instructions that stipulate communication within one month. This delay was deemed fatal to the case by the Tribunal.

2. Timeliness of Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Entries:
The applicant contended that his representation against the adverse entries, submitted on 10-1-2002, should have been disposed of within three months. However, the representation was only rejected on 28-6-2002, six months later, violating the stipulated timeframe. The Tribunal found this delay contrary to the instructions on the subject.

3. Alleged Discrimination in Handling Adverse Remarks Among Different Judicial Members:
The applicant claimed discrimination, stating that similar adverse remarks for other Judicial Members were expunged without reasons, while his request was rejected. The Tribunal noted that no reasons were provided for rejecting the applicant's representation, which contributed to the perception of discrimination.

4. Basis of the Adverse Entries and Whether They Were Supported by Evidence:
The applicant argued that the adverse entries were based on hearsay and not supported by any analysis of his judicial or administrative functions. The Tribunal observed that no records or materials substantiating the adverse entries were presented to either the applicant or the Tribunal, making the adverse entries liable to be expunged.

5. Authority and Practice of Writing ACRs for Members of CEGAT:
The Tribunal examined the authority under which the applicant's ACR was initiated. It was noted that doubts existed within the government regarding the practice of writing ACRs for Members/Vice-Chairman of CEGAT. The decision to continue this practice was based on a comparison with ITAT, but the Tribunal found the decision ambivalent and suggested that the government should clarify this practice at an appropriate level.

6. Compliance with Instructions Regarding the Communication of Adverse Remarks:
The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to adhere to the instructions requiring the communication of both adverse and good remarks. Only adverse entries were communicated to the applicant, which was against the prescribed guidelines. This non-compliance further weakened the respondents' position.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had made a valid case. It directed the respondents to expunge the adverse remarks in the applicant's ACR for the period 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2001 and quashed the impugned order dated 28-6-2002. The OA was allowed with no order as to costs. The Tribunal also appreciated the objective presentation of the case by both counsels.

← Previous Next →