IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25725 of 2010(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR,CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF
Vs
1. V.J.XAVIER,BOSUN,CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :16/08/2010
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.25725 of 2010-S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010.
Judgment
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
The petitioner establishment challenges an order
of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The
question raised is as to whether the respondent,
who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was
eligible for first ACP of 9.8.1999 and the second
ACP on completion of 24 years of service. It is
not in dispute that on completion of 24 years, he
was eligible for the second ACP. The issue is
whether the denial of the first ACP on ground
that he was not found to have acquired the bench-
mark stands. We find that all that the Tribunal
has done is to direct the establishment to
WPC25725/10 -: 2 :-
consider the case of the applicant since no entry
adverse to his interest was put to him and going
by the ratio of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt v.
Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, an entry in the
service records which discloses adverse remark
for any purpose should not be utilized against an
officer unless appropriately communicated since
the incumbent should have an opportunity to
challenge such entry which would ultimately
result in adverse consequences. Therefore, the
law is that every entry which may tend to operate
as adverse should be put to an officer.
What exactly is the bench-mark which the
Screening Committee had adopted was not produced
before the Tribunal. All that the Tribunal has
done is to direct the establishment to consider
the representation of the applicant and to
provide him an opportunity of hearing, if the
decision were adverse to him. Under such
circumstances, we find no error of jurisdiction
or illegality on the face of the impugned
WPC25725/10 -: 3 :-
decision of the Tribunal. The writ petition
fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
S.S.Satheesachandran,
Judge.
Sha/2808