Rajib Ray vs. The State Of Tripura And 8 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the gradings in the ACRs for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 were indeed inconsistent with the remarks made by the Reporting Officer under various columns, indicating a lack of application of mind and arbitrary downgrading. The Court found that the ultimate gradings of 'Good' and 'Average' for these periods were not supported by the detailed remarks, making them unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court noted that the communication of these downgraded ACRs was significantly delayed, occurring much beyond a reasonable period, which prejudiced the petitioner. Consequently, the Court quashed the downgraded ACRs for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 and directed that they should not be considered for the petitioner's promotion. The Court ordered the official respondents to convene a review meeting of the DPC to reassess the petitioner's suitability for promotion to Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, considering his ACRs for 2016-17 and 2020-21, and to grant him notional promotion with consequential service benefits from the date his junior was promoted. The Court also clarified that the petitioner's promotion would not affect the promotions of Respondents 8 and 9, and if no post was available, a supernumerary post would be created.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajib Ray, challenged his ACR gradings for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, and the subsequent promotion of his junior, Respondent No. 8, to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. The petitioner was appointed Superintendent of Taxes in 1996 and eligible for promotion to Assistant Commissioner of Taxes since 2001, requiring a 'Very Good' benchmark in ACRs for the preceding five years. While graded 'Very Good' for 2016-17 and 2020-21, his ACRs for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 were downgraded to 'Good', 'Average', and 'Good' respectively. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) found the petitioner 'unfit' due to this shortfall, leading to his junior's promotion. The petitioner argued that the downgrades were arbitrary and not communicated promptly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the gradings below the benchmark in the ACRs for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 were communicated to the petitioner within a reasonable period, as required by principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the ACR gradings for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 were made mechanically and arbitrarily, suffering from non-application of mind, thereby warranting their quashing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the ACR gradings below the benchmark were communicated unreasonably late. The ACR for 2018-19 ('Average') was communicated on 18.10.2021, and for 2017-18 and 2019-20 ('Good') on 25.01.2022, significantly after the periods in question. This delay, coupled with the arbitrary downgrading, violated Articles 14 and 16. The petitioner also argued that the gradings were inconsistent with the remarks made in various columns of the ACRs, indicating a lack of application of mind. State-respondents' arguments: The State submitted that ACRs were written after the promotion exercise and that while communication delays occurred, they were not discriminatory as none of the officers in the consideration zone had their ACRs communicated promptly. Respondent No. 8 argued that his promotion was valid as he met the benchmark in his ACRs.