Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma examined whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana should to have interfered with the Order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench dated December 3, 2018 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court set aside CAT's order and expunged the opinion of the Accepting Authority; and (ii) restored (a) the opinion of the Reviewing Authority; and (b) the grade awarded by the Reviewing Authority regarding performance appraisal report under the provisions of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.
In its judgement, the Supreme Court observes, "it is our opinion that the High Court entered into a specialised domain i.e., evaluating the competency of an IAS officer by way of contrasting and comparing the remarks and overall grades awarded" to Ashok Khemka by (i) the Reporting Authority; (ii) the Reviewing Authority; and (iii) the Accepting Authority, without the requisite domain expertise and administrative experience to conduct such an evaluation. It also observed that "The High Court ought not to have ventured into the said domain particularly when the Accepting Authority is yet to pronounce its decision qua the Underlying Representation."
In this backdrop, the Court concluded that "the learned Division Bench of the High Court erred in law. Accordingly, we set aside the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court. Additionally, as we have been informed that the Accepting Authority is yet to take a decision on the Underlying Representation, we direct the Accepting Authority to take a decision on the Underlying Representation under Rule 9(7B) of the PAR Rules within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of pronouncement of this Judgement." It granted liberty to Ashok Khemka to take recourse to remedies as may be available under law. The judgement dated March 11, 2024 was authored by Justice Sharma.
No comments:
Post a Comment