The Union of India vs K. Rajarajacholan and The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench K. Rajarajacholan Vs The Union of India

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 13928 of

2012. The first Writ Petition is filed by the Commissioner of Customs and others challenging the order made in Original Application No. 1541 of

2012 dated 9.4.2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, wherein the first respondent has challenged the order dated 7.10.2010

denying Second ACP due to him as on 6.8.2007 i.e., the date of completion of 24 years of service and in the said Original Application, though the

order dated 7.10.2010 was not quashed, direction was given to grant Second ACP to the first respondent. Since, the order dated 7.10.2010 was

not quashed by the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed the second Writ Petition to quash the order dated 7.10.2010.

It is a fact that the ACR entries, namely ""Just adequate"" made in the Service Register were not communicated to the first respondent on the

crucial date that was on 6.8.2007 and the first respondent was denied the Second ACP. Though subsequently the ACR entries were

communicated, the crucial issue in these Writ Petitions is as to whether the petitioners were justified in relying upon the non-communicated ACR of

the first respondent to decide the issue relating to his eligibility to get Second ACP. It is an admitted case that the ACR entries, namely ""Just

adequate"" were not communicated to the first respondent on the crucial date that was on 6.8.2007.

The issue as to whether the non-communicated ACR entries can be relied on for the purposes of promotion/increase in the scale of pay either

for Selection Grade or Special Grade or Second ACP, was already decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision in Abhijit Ghosh

Dastidar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and in paragraph No. 8, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:

Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark ""very good"" is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of

good"" was not communicated to the applicant. The entry of ""good"" should have been communicated to him, as he was having ""very good"" in the

previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant whether he

is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or

getting other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view

has been reiterated in the above referred decision (Dev Dutt case, SCC p.738 para 41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries ""good"" if

at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The

respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him.

Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case and admittedly, as ACR entries, namely ""Just adequate"" made in the Service Register insofar

as the first respondent is concerned, were not communicated as on the crucial date, i.e., on 6.8.2007, the said ACR entries cannot be relied on by

the petitioners to consider the claim of the respondent seeking Second ACP from 6.8.2007.

The Tribunal instead of deciding the said issue in such manner has gone to the matter on merits and passed an order with direction to grant

Second ACP to the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside as

requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the matter may be remitted to the second petitioner to consider his case for the Second

ACP for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Hence, the second petitioner, namely, Additional Commissioner of Customs, ADC, Unit

Mandapam Road, Ramanathapuram is directed to consider the said aspect and pass fresh orders in the light of the judgment cited supra within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.