9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1221 - SC - Indian LawsDenial of promotion from the post of Commissioner of Income Tax to that of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - Held that - non-consideration of the claim of the appellant is concerned, we are satisfied that the proposition of law relevant for the controversy in hand, was declared upon by this Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others, 2008 (10) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT - impugned order passed by the High Court, deserves to be set aside, inasmuch as, the claim of the appellant could not be ignored by taking into consideration, uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1998-1999, wherein the appellant was assessed as good . In the absence of the aforesaid entries, it is apparent, that the remaining entries of the appellant being very good , he would be entitled to be considered fit for the promotion, to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, on the basis of the then prevailing DoPT guidelines, and the remaining valid Annual Confidential Reports. - respondents ought to be directed to reconsider the claim of promotion of the appellant, to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, for the vacancies which arose during the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 on the basis of the communicated reports for the years 1997-1998 and 1999-2000, within a period of three month - Decided in favour of Appellant.
Issues:
1. Consideration for promotion from Commissioner of Income Tax to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Validity of uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports in promotion decisions. 3. Judicial interpretation of non-communication of ACR entries and its impact on promotions. Issue 1: Consideration for promotion The appellant sought promotion from Commissioner of Income Tax to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The criteria for promotion required a "very good" service record, as per DoPT guidelines. The appellant's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 were considered. While some ACRs were rated as "good," others were rated as "very good." Due to not meeting the "very good" benchmark, the appellant was not promoted. Issue 2: Validity of uncommunicated ACRs The appellant challenged the non-consideration of his promotion claim due to uncommunicated ACRs. The Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing a review of his case. However, the High Court overturned this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments emphasizing that non-communication of ACR entries can impact promotions and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Issue 3: Judicial interpretation of non-communication of ACR entries The Supreme Court referred to previous cases like Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India to support the importance of communicating ACR entries to public servants. The Court held that every ACR entry, whether poor, fair, average, good, or very good, must be communicated within a reasonable period. In this case, the uncommunicated "good" ratings affected the promotion decision. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed reconsideration of the promotion based on valid ACRs from specific years. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the reconsideration of the appellant's promotion to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax based on communicated ACRs from specific years. If found suitable for promotion, the appellant would be entitled to arrears of salary and revision of retiral benefits. The authorities were instructed not to interfere with already made promotions and given the option to create a notional post if needed to implement the order.
|
