Vijay Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur and Others

Matter has come up on the early hearing application, however, with the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of ASI (M) in April, 1994 and while in service there were adverse remarks recorded in his ACR and for some alleged delinquency, a penalty of censure was inflicted upon him under the Disciplinary Rules which was the subject matter of challenge before the ld. Tribunal and at present are pending before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir.

However, based on the service record, when the candidature of petitioner was considered for Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP), he was not recommended by the committee obviously on the basis of his adverse record of service and it was communicated to him vide order dt. 12.06.2007 (Ann. 1). The said communication was challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application before the ld. Tribunal.

The ld. Tribunal taking note of the material which came on record observed that the petitioner was not recommended for grant of ACP due to adverse record of service and once the proceedings challenging adverse remarks in his ACR and penalty of censure are pending before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, there appears no error in the light thereof, however, considered that after the outcome of pending proceedings before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner will be at liberty to move an application for grant of ACP, in changed circumstances, before the competent authority and to review the order dt. 12.06.2007.

Counsel further submits that even if the petitioner was not recommended on the basis of adverse record of service for grant of ACP, which became due to him, vide order dt. 12.06.2007 but he could not be deprived from fair consideration for indefinite period and the respondents are under obligation to consider his candidature for grant of ACP, keeping in view adverse record of service, at least for subsequent years and if he finally succeeds before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir that will give him a right of review and to reconsider on the basis of change in the record of service which at one stage denied to him vide order dt. 12.06.2007.

The ld. Tribunal in its order impugned has granted liberty to the petitioner to make representation and apart from it as regards the prayer made for consideration in regard to subsequent years for grant of ACP is concerned, the petitioner is always at liberty to move an application in the pending proceedings before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir where the order of penalty of Censure and adverse entry in ACR are under challenge but that will not give an independent cause to file Original Application before the ld. Tribunal and apart from it in the instant case the petitioner confined his grievance assailing the order dt. 12.06.2007 whereby his candidature was not recommended for the grant of ACP because of indifferent record of service and it was not the case ever set up by him before the ld. Tribunal that he was at least entitled to be considered for subsequent years, keeping in view punishment inflicted upon him and he could not be deprived for indefinite period based upon his adverse record of service. Consequently, in our considered view the petition is wholly bereft of merit and stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is certainly at liberty to make a representation before the competent authority at least for consideration for subsequent years for grant of ACP & if such a representation is made, it is expected from the authority to examine the same independently in accordance with law.