Union of India (UOI) vs Smt. Ravinder Narang

Vijender Jain, J.—This petition impugns the Tribunal''s order on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that for the period 1995-96 it was the respondent herself who had submitted the self appraisal report on 2nd June, 1998 and on this ground it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the decision of the UP Jal Nigam''s case would be applicable to the case of the respondent. It was argued that the respondent was herself responsible for submitting the self appraisal report so late. That question ought to have been determined and answered by the Tribunal.

We have given our careful consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal has discussed in the para 9 of the impugned judgment that the ACR of the respondent in the year 1994-95 was adjudged very good and for the year 1995-96 also her grading was very good. There would have been some force in the arguments of the petitioner if the respondent would not have got very good grading for 1995-96. As a matter of fact, it appears that even after the UP Jal Nigam''s case the law has not been understood by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit in para 4.4. it is stated by the petitioner before the Tribunal that grading an officer below benchmark cannot be construed as insertion of adverse remarks in the ACR.

In view of the decision in UP Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. 1996 2 SCC and catena of cases decided by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in Brigadier A.S. Saharan v. Union of India 2001 1 SLR 80 , Rajinder Singh Sehrawat Vs. Union of India and others, , Sh. J.S. Garg Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , Balwan Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 65 DRJ 464 , Major Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and The Chief of the Army Staff, , it is no more rest integra that if down grading has got effect of adverse consideration in the matter of promotion then that ACR has to be communicated to the person concerned. In the case before us the Tribunal in para 10 has observed that the down grading started in the present case from 1996 i.e., after UP Jal Nigam case was pronounced on 31st January, 1996.

We, Therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.