9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Whether a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is required to be convened to consider a candidate for promotion when there has been an upgradation of his below-benchmark Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from the time he was first found unfit for promotion. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Requirement of Review DPC for Promotion Consideration The primary issue is whether a review DPC should be convened to reconsider the respondent's promotion after the upgradation of his below-benchmark ACRs. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to constitute a review DPC to consider the respondent's promotion to Deputy Secretary from the time he was first overlooked by his juniors. Issue 2: Pending Supreme Court Decision The petitioners argued that the issue of retrospective promotion consideration is pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in UOI v. A.K. Goel & Ors., SLP (C) No. 15770/2009, and thus, the Court should await the Supreme Court's decision. However, the Court noted that the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed until a decision is rendered. Issue 3: Office Memorandum Interpretation Petitioners contended that the Office Memorandum No. 21011/1/2010 dated 13.04.2010 indicates that the upgradation of ACRs should only have prospective effect. However, the Court found that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the benefit intended to be given. The memorandum cannot be construed to mean that an employee would only be considered for future promotions after the upgradation of ACRs. Issue 4: Non-Communication of ACRs and Legal Precedents The Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725, and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 146, held that non-communication of ACRs has civil consequences and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that all ACRs must be communicated to the public servant to allow for representations and potential upgradation, ensuring fairness and transparency in public administration. Issue 5: Tribunal's Rationale The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the respondent should benefit from the upgradation of his ACRs from the time they were first considered, not just for future DPCs. The Court agreed with this rationale, noting that the respondent was deprived of legitimate promotion for three years due to erroneous assessments, which were later corrected. Issue 6: Case Law Supporting Tribunal's Decision The Court referred to similar cases, such as Union of India and Ors. vs. Krishna Mohan Dixit and Ors. and Union of India and Ors vs. Haldhar Prasad, where it was held that review DPCs should be constituted if below-benchmark ACRs, which were not communicated, were later upgraded. The benefit of such upgradation should be retrospective, affecting the date of the initial promotion consideration. Conclusion: The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, which correctly applied the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed, affirming that a review DPC should be convened to consider the respondent's promotion retrospectively from the date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits. The petitioners' arguments regarding the pending Supreme Court decision and the interpretation of the Office Memorandum were not sufficient to alter this outcome.
|
