THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA vs. R RAVICHANDER (1)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.47882/2011(S-CAT) BETWEEN 1. THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA POCKET NO.9, DEENDAYAL UPADHYAYA MARG, NEW DELHI – 101 24 2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (C & CA), KARNATAKA, “C” BLOCK, NEW BUILDING, P.B. NO. 5398 BANGALORE – 560 001 3. THE SR. DY. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL O/O THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (C & CA), KARNATAKA, “C’ BLOCK, NEW BUILDING, P.N. NO.5398, BANGALORE – 560 001 ... PETITIONERS (BY M.VASUDEVA RAO – ADV.) AND R.RAVICHANDER (1) S/O LATE J.RAMANATHAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/A AUDIT OFFICER (CIVIL) O/O THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (C & CA), KARNATAKA, “C” BLOCK, NEW BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.9.11 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH BANGALORE IN OA NO.557/11 VIDE ANNX – E. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER The Union of India has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the CAT setting aside the adverse entries made in the respondent’s ACR for the period from 7.8.2007 to 31.3.2008 and also the memo dated 1.12.2008 rejecting the applicant’s representation to expunge the said adverse entries, without remanding the matter to the authorities for writing a speaking order before rejecting the request to expunge the adverse remarks. 2. The respondent while he was working as Audit Officer was communicated with the adverse entries in the annual confidential remarks for the period from 7.8.2007 to 31.3.2008. On receipt of the said adverse comments he filed a representation on 17.12.2008 seeking for expunging the same. The said request was

3 rejected by an order dated 1.12.2008. Aggrieved by the same the respondent preferred an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that the Reviewing officer has failed to judiciously consider the respondent’s representation and has rejected the same in a mechanical manner. Therefore, it was found to be unsustainable. The petitioner is aggrieved by this portion of the order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends if the order of the Reviewing officer is set aside on the ground that he has passed the order in a mechanical manner, after setting aside the order the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the Reviewing Officer to consider the representation and pass an appropriate speaking order. Therefore, as the said course is not adopted by the Tribunal, the order requires to be set aside and matter has to be remanded to the Reviewing Officer to pass orders on merits. 4. In somewhat identical situation, this Court in W.P.NO.9653/2012 dt.18.6.2012 (The Chief

4 Commissioner of Income Tax and others – vs – Sri.T.Purushothama), after taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India – vs – E.G.Nambudri (1991) 3 SCC 38), has issued certain directions. Following the same, we pass the following :- ORDER 1. The Writ petition is allowed; 2. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The impugned order is hereby confirmed; 3. However, the Reviewing Authority shall consider the explanation offered by the respondent in the light of the law set out in the aforesaid case, as declared by the Apex Court, and consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on its merits. No costs. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE rs