TRIDIV MOHAN DAS V. THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS

WP(C)/244/2016

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner's challenge to the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which found him 'unfit' for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) for the vacancy years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The petitioner contested the DPC's decision and the related Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. The Tribunal's earlier decision directed a reconsideration of the petitioner's case in light of a related Delhi High Court decision, which had quashed the DOP&T Circular. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), representing the respondents, acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but noted that a Review DPC had re-evaluated the petitioner's case and recommended promotion, which was pending action by the concerned department.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685964 (HC-ASSAM)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: UPSC vs. Sugan Singh & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: DOP&T OM dated 06.01.2010, DOP&T OM dated 09.05.2014
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C KEYAL; B CHAKRABORTY
• Assessee Lawyers: G J SARMA
• Keywords: Administrative Tribunal; Chief Commissioner of Income Tax; Departmental Promotion Committee; Promotion; Review DPC
• Section: 360/2013

Judgement Text

"WP(C) 244/2016 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Manojit Bhuyan, J) Heard Mr. G.J. Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioner as wel l as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing R espondent Nos.1, 2 and 5. Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel represents Respon dent No.6. 2. This writ petition arises from the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application No.360 o f 2013. 3. Detailed analysis of the facts are not gone into because of the consensu s reached by either parties. Suffice to say, the petitioner was considered for p romotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) by the Departmen tal Promotion Committee (DPC) on 17.09.2013 against one supplementary vacancy fo r the year 2012-13 and 35 regular vacancies for the vacancy year 2013-14. To und ertake the said process, the ACRs/APARs for the period from 2006-2007 to 2010-20 11 for the vacancy year 2012-13 and from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 for the vacancy year 2013-14 were examined. As per instructions of the DOP&T the benchmark of V ery Good was required to be met in all the 5 ACRs under consideration for promo tion. On consideration thereof the Departmental Promotion Committee found petiti oner as ’unfit’ for both the vacancy years. Reasons were also recorded in the Mi nutes of the DPC dated 17.09.2013. This was put to challenge by the petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A. No.360/2013 with prayer for setting aside the Office Memorandum dated 06.01.2010 of the DOP&T, as mentioned in the Minutes, as well as para 8.1 of the Minutes downgrading the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Prayer was also made to modify the Annexure-I and Annexure -II of the Minutes by setting aside the word ’unfit’ and adding the petitioner’s name in the panel for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2015 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision to be rendered by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.447/2014 (UPSC vs. Sugan Singh & Ors.). The subject-matter in the said WP(C) 447/2014 before the Delhi High Court was in re spect of the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative T ribunal in O.A. No.2681/2012 whereby the DOP&T Circular dated 06.01.2010 had bee n quashed. 4. Before this Court, the petitioner have submitted that the order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in the related O.A. No.3 60/2013 is in the nature of a futile writ, in as much as, the Tribunal had depar ted from the principle of precedents by ignoring to follow the judgments of Co-o rdinate Benches in O.A. No.2681/2012 and another O.A. No.3893/2012, which were d isposed of by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for modification of the order of the Tribunal dated 21.01.2015 and for setting a side para 4(i) and 4(iii) of the DPC Minutes dated 17.09.2013 as well as for set ting aside the downgrading of the ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Prayer is also made for a direction to the respondents to promo te the petitioner as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax from the date his juniors had been promoted with consequential benefits. 6. In the present proceedings an affidavit has been filed on 09.08.2017 on behalf of the Union Public Service Commission i.e. Respondent No.6. Paragraph 1 0 thereof, which primarily narrows down the adjudication of the present case, re ads as under: 10. That besides above, it is respectfully submitted that recently, in view of directions of the ACC in the cases of some officers including the Petitioner, the Department sent a Review DPC proposal to review the proceedings of aforesai d DPC held on 17.09.2013 for promotion to the post of CCIT for the vacancy year 2013-14 in respect of these officers. The RDPC, was convened on 27.04.2017 wher ein the Committee examined again ACRs/APARs along with representations of these officers, office records containing decisions of the Competent Authorities on th e representations, speaking order made available by the Department and having ta ken into account the instructions/guidelines prescribed in the DOP&T OM dated 09 .05.2014. The Review DPC, on the basis of aforesaid overall assessment in the c ase of the above officers including the Petitioner in the instant case, sent its recommendations for promotion to the post of CCIT for the vacancy year 2013-14, to the Department on 27.04.2017 for further necessary action at their end. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges the stand taken by t he UPSC at paragraph 10 of its affidavit. Apprehension expressed is only to the delay caused at the end of the Department concerned, in as much as, the Review DPC had sent its recommendation way back on 27.04.2017 to the Department. 8. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits tha t given 3(three) months’ time, the recommendations made by the Review DPC would be brought to its logical conclusion by passing necessary order. 9. Having regard to the statements and averments made in paragraph 10 of th e affidavit filed by the UPSC and as agreed to by the counsels for the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents concerne d to take necessary action in terms of the recommendations made by the Review DP C on 27.04.2017 for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax fo r the vacancy year 2013-14. This be done within an outer limit period of 3(thre e) months from today. Ordered accordingly. "