CAT relief to senior architect, expunges adverse ACR remarks

The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has said adverse remarks recorded in ACR can be quashed only if they are the result of malice or ill will of the officer towards the official commented upon. In such cases, when the biased and prejudiced mind-set behind writing the ACR is evident, the interference of court is warranted.

The Bench made the observation while giving judgment in favour of Enna Passi, Senior Architect of Central Public Works Department, Chandigarh. Passi in the application filed before the Bench through advocate Rohit Seth said she was working as Senior Architect in the department since June 23, 2014, and respondent no.3, (Prabhaker Kumar Verma) was her reporting officer. She said Verma gave below benchmark grading in her ACR for 2014-15 and 2015-16, but the reviewing officer did not agree with the reporting given by Verma and upgraded her ACR to ‘’very good’’.

For the period April 1, 2016, to November 30, 2016, Verma again graded her ACR below benchmark. Later, he was promoted as ADG and posted as ADG, Northern Region-I, Chandigarh, from November 23, 2016, to November 30, 2016, only for eight days. But he still reviewed her ACR, agreeing with his own report written by him as reporting officer for the period April 1, 2016, to November 30, 2016.

She said Verma could not review her ACR for the abovesaid period as it was less than 90 days. He had written her ACR and he could not review his own report.

After hearing the arguments the Bench comprising Suresh Kumar Batra, member (J), and Rashmi Saxena Sahni, member (A), said the way respondent No. 3 reviewed the ACR of the applicant was enough to show that he was hell bent upon spoiling the applicant’s service career by downgrading her ACR. In such cases when the biased and prejudiced mind-set behind writing ACR is evident, the interference of court is warranted.

As per rules, in case the reporting period is less than 90 days, the facts may be verified and no reporting certificate may be issued. In the present case, the period for which the respondent no. 3 had been the applicant’s reviewing authority was for only eight days. The respondent no. 3, who remained applicant’s reviewing authority for eight days only, should have restrained himself from reviewing applicant’s ACR ethically and professionally, especially when he had already recorded her ACR as reporting officer.

Apparently, the action of respondent no. 3 in writing applicant’s ACR is not fair and seems to be done with malice and prejudice, and it is also not in consonance with the principles of justice, therefore, the same is held to be illegal.

The tribunal further said the adverse entries made in the ACR for that period are expunged and Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department,

was directed to ignore the ACR for the period for the purpose of grant of any kind of service benefit, including promotion, to which she is otherwise eligible.