SI NAnd Kishore vs Govt. Of NCT And Ors

S.N.Terdal, J

We have heard Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, counsel for applicant and Ms. P.K.Gupta,  counsel  for  respondents,  perused  the  pleadings  and  all documents produced by both the parties.

In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: " Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2013;

Direct the respondents to consider and upgrade the ACR for the period from 1.04.2007 to 31.03.2008;

Respondents be directed to pay the costs of the case to the applicants;

May pass such other further orders/directions deem fit and proper in the facts of the case in favour of the applicant and against the Respondents."

The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Sub-Inspector (Executive) (SI (Exe.) during the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 in Police Station Darya Ganj, Central District, Delhi. His ACR for the said period was written as Reporting Officer by ACP, Darya Ganj and thereafter it was reviewed by the DCP, Central District, with a grading as "Average". Subsequently in pursuance of Police Headquarter letter, namely, PHQ's U.O No. 16207-223/CB-VIII (SI/Exe.)/PHQ, dated 19.03.2013 which was issued by the Police Headquarter in view of Department of Personnel & Training Memo. No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.A, dated 13.03.2010, the ACR and the grading were served on the applicant enabling him to submit representation. The applicant submitted his representation. On the basis of the representation, comments were called from the Reviewing Officer (RO) only as the Reporting Officer had retired on superannuation in 2008 itself. The representation and the comments of the reviewing officer and all the other materials were considered and the representation of the applicant for enhancement of the grading of the said ACR was rejected by the impugned letter dated 22.08.2013.

The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously submitted that the assessment made in the ACR by the reporting officer was not based on facts and no reasons or facts were recorded in assessing the applicant only as a "satisfactory" on various counts and the overall grading of "Average" was not at all justified and the performance of various tasks and duties enumerated in his representation was not duly considered and a reasoned and speaking order was not passed, as such, the impugned order dated 22.08.2013 is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. He specifically invited our attention to the following portion of the representation.  "That during the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 I had performed multifarious duties in P.S. Darya Ganj. The detais of some of the important duties assigned to me are as follows:-

As many as 63 crime cases were investigated by me.

As many as more than 15 inquest proceedings were completed by me.

The enquiry of the large number of timed and important nature complaints/VVIP references and local complaints were conducted and reports were sent which were accepted by the senior officers.

The court cases and complaints received u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and civil suits received in PS Darya Ganj were competently handled and processed with the court concerned.

PS Darya Ganj is known for regular arrangements duties at important places like Rajghat, Ramlila Maidan. I was deputed to perform these duties and the same were performed besides other duties. The important duties in IPL cricket matches were also performed by me during the above mentioned period of ACR.

During the period from 1.4.07 to 31.3.08 I was posted as Division Officer in PS Darya Ganj. I performed general natures duties competently without any complaint from general public and even from the senior officers."

The counsel for the respondents vehemently and strenuously submitted that the applicant had not filled in part-II regarding self assessment at the time of submitting the ACR form which is produced as Annexure-II. She further submitted that the assessment made by the reporting officer is a fair assessment and it is neither vindictive nor malafide or biased or arbitrary but it is based on unbiased assessment based on closed supervision of the performance of the applicant, even though the applicant had not submitted his self assessment and she further submitted that the reviewing officer has also made a unbiased review  of  the  grading  given  by  the  reporting  officer.  She  further submitted that before rejecting the representation of the applicant the comments of the reviewing officer was called for about the contents of the representation of the applicant and after carefully considering the entire material, the impugned order was passed upholding the grading given to the applicant. There is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness or vindictive discrimination or any whimsical discrimination in disposing of the representation of the applicant by the said impugned order dated 22.08.2013 and, therefore, no interference in the grading given to the applicant for the year 2007 to 2008 or in the impugned order is called for. In support of her contention, the counsel specifically brought to our notice the following averments made in the counter reply filed by the respondents:

"..........The  Reporting  Officer  initiated  the  ACR  of  SI  (Fixe.) Nand Kishore, No. D-2758 from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 keeping in view the work and conduct of said SI and adopting the due process of recording of ACR in which grading was given "Average".

While the process of recording ACR was going on, Sh. Alok Kumar, DCP/Central District transferred to Special Branch vide PHQ's order No. A/1/2(1)/ 2008/52223-324/CB-1/PHQ dated 15.09.08.

Accordingly, Sh.Alok Kumar, DCP/Special Branch reviewed the ACR of SI (Exe.) Nand Kishore, No. D-2758 in the capacity of the then DCP/Central District and accepted the assessment recorded in the ACR by the reporting officer.

Thereafter, a copy of the recorded and reviewed ACR of SI(Exe.) Nand Kishore, No. D-2758 for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 was given to him vide this office letter No. 659/PA/DCP/NWD dated 22.03.2013 in pursuance of PHQ U.O No. 16551-650/CN-1/PHQ dated 20.03.2013 & Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension (Department of Personnel & Training) Memo No. 21011/2010-Estt. A dated 13.04.2010 against proper receipt mentioning therein that he can make a representation against the entries and final grading given in the report within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the ACR/APAR, if he so desires.

SI (Exe.) Nand Kishore submitted a representation on 09.04.2013 addressed to Commissioner of Police, Delhi. As the reporting officer (Sh. Ashok Kumar Saxena) had already been superannuated on 31.10.2008, his replies were not obtained as per rule. The reviewing officer furnished his comments mentioning that he was agreed with the remarks of the reporting officer as they were based upon the performance of the officer.

Thereafter, considering the comments of reviewing officer and representation of SE (Exe.) Nand Kishore, the appellate authority i.e. Jt. CP/NR (Sh. Virender Singh) rejected the representation of SI vide his U.O. No. 57/P.sec./Jt. CP/NR dated 21.08.2013. The outcome of the representation was also conveyed to the applicant on 29.08.13 resulting which the present OA has been filed.

.... xxx ..... xxx

A. In reply to contents of Ground 5(A) it is submitted that the Reporting Officer had recorded the relevant ACR of applicant in a proper manner as he was the Sub-Division ACP of applicant and closely supervised the performance of the applicant. Hence, non-submission of self assessment by the applicant was not a ground for awarding below benchmark grading. Here it is pertinent to mention that sincere efforts were made by DCP/ Central District office to obtain his self assessment and recording of ACR as several letters and reminder were sent to ACP/Darya Ganj in this regard...."

In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit, we are of the view that the assessment made is not a biased one nor it is discriminatory  or  unreasonable  and  the  impugned  order  is  also  not unreasonable or discriminatory.

Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.