CAT order checks bias in I-T dept

In a ruling aimed at checking bias in departmental promotions, the Central
Administrative Tribunal has said if a Departmental Promotion Committee goes
against the entries in an employee’s Annual Confidential Reports, the panel must
give reasons for its decision.



A CAT bench said: “The DPC, as per DOP&T instructions may make its own
assessment on the basis of entries in the ACRs and may not be guided merely by
the overall grading. However, in cases where the assessment by DPCs are
apparently not in line with the gradings in the ACRs, the DPC should
appropriately substantiate its assessment...”



The ruling came on a petition filed by an income tax commissioner, who was
ignored for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of I-T even as his
juniors made it to the post.



This was despite the fact that D. K. Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax
(appeal-IV), M.G. Road, Chennai had the prescribed benchmark (very good) in all
the ACRs under consideration.



Singh, an Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) Officer of 1977 batch, enjoyed
excellent service record.



However, the DPC held on October 23, 2009 did not recommend Singh for promotion.
Copies of his ACRs (2003-04 to 2007-08) revealed his reporting officer had given
adverse remarks, which was corrected by the reviewing officer, who graded him as
‘very good’.



Singh, who had always been graded ‘very good’ in the ACRs preceding and
succeeding the year 2005-06, submitted that “if one were to go by the remarks of
the reporting officer, there is sudden sharp decline in the personal traits and
skills of the applicant for the year 2005-06 ....Sharp fluctuations are not
possible ... rather suggest bias and malice ....”



Singh alleged that the DPC went by assessment of the reporting officer and
ignored the report made by the reviewing officer. As per the SC rulings adverse
remarks in ACRs have to be communicated to employee concerned.



The CAT said: “Assuming that the reporting officer would have graded the
applicant (Singh) only as ‘good’ because of some adverse remarks given by him,
the same stood overruled by the reviewing officer. Though such was the position,
the DPC could still take its own view and overrule the grading done by the
reporting or the reviewing officer. For that, it was required to record
reasons.”



The CAT pointed out that there was not a word mentioned as to why Singh had been
found ‘unfit’. “There is not even a mention that ACR of the applicant ... would
be considered only as good going by the adverse remarks given by the reporting
officer, least the preference between the two gradings done by the reporting and
the reviewing officer,” it noted.



“Present is not a case of the reporting officer giving over all grading of
‘good’ to the applicant for the year 2005-06... he has not graded the applicant
at all,” the CAT pointed out.



Allowing Singh’s plea, the CAT directed the department of revenue, department of
personnel and training and the UPSC to convene a review DPC for considering his
case for promotion to the post of chief commissioner of I-T, as expeditiously as
possible and definitely within a period of two months.



“In case the review DPC assesses the applicant fit for promotion, he would be
promoted from the date persons junior to him were promoted, with all
...benefits,” the CAT ordered.