45. Instead, the Review Committee has concentrated on peripherals, while referring to the ACRs. It has noted the fact that, for certain periods, the higher officers had not reviewed the ACRs in time. As the Tribunal has rightly held, the respondent cannot be blamed for delay on the part of her superior officers. Then again, for some periods, she had served under the officer for less than 90 days, so that the ACR could not be written. This, too, could not be laid at the respondent’s door. The only periods for which the respondent was alleged not to have submitted her self-appraisals on time were 20062007 and 2012-2013, which were much prior to the decision to compulsorily retire her. To us, it is clear that, even if it were to be assumed that, for two periods way back in time, there was delay on the part of the respondent in submitting her self appraisals, that cannot be regarded as a ground to regard her as “deadwood” nearly a decade thereafter especially when, in the interregnum, she was awarded high rankings in her ACRs. Unfortunately, as we have already noted, these rankings were entirely ignored by the Review Committee.
