Union of Inida & Anr. v. S.R. Senapati
Case brief
What is this about?
This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order remanding a matter regarding the respondent's ACR grading. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that the petitioner must re-examine the representation with a reasoned order.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to consider the representation and make an assessment of the respondent's performance by a reasoned order.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(C) 3260/2018 AND CM APPL. 12850-12853/2018
UNION OF INIDA & ANR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ruchir Mihra and Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advs. versus S.R. SENAPATI ..... Respondent Through None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 14.11.2018
- The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) in OA no. 785/2012. The respondent has filed the Original Application to assail the order dated 03.05.2011 (wrongly dated as 03.05.2010). By the said communication, the petitioners had rejected the representation of the respondent in respect of his ACR grading for the year 2005-06 which was below benchmark. The Tribunal while disposing of Original Application has merely remanded back the matter to the competent authority i.e. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to re-examine and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order indicating the nature and extent of deficiency, if any. It was contended before the Tribunal that the assessment had to be made in respect of action plan which has W.P.(C) 3260/2018 Page 1 of 2
four components namely, revenue collection, processing of returns, issuance of refunds and inspection as a part of the duty of the Additional Commissioner – position occupied by the petitioner. So far as revenue collection is concerned, the respondent had achieved the target. His representation was rejected by the order dated 03.05.2011 on the premise that in respect of other three components, he himself had not disclosed his assessment.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should reconsider the grading of the respondent's Annual Confidential Report without awarding it.
Whether the Tribunal's remand order, requiring a reasoned assessment of performance deficiencies, warrants the petitioner's challenge.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
UNION OF INDIA
- respondent
SR SENAPATI
Coram
VIPIN SANGHI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court