Uncommunicated adverse ACR entries cannot justify denial of MACP financial upgradation.

The applicant, an erstwhile DTC driver, was appointed as a Retainer Crew Driver on 30.05.1990 and placed on monthly rates of pay from 01.12.1990.

His services were terminated with effect from 26.11.1992, but the Labour Court, by Award dated 02.03.1996, held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

Following dismissal of the DTC’s writ petition for non-prosecution, he was reinstated on 09.01.2004 with continuity of service and full back wages.

His first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme was granted from 26.11.2004, and his second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme allegedly became due from 26.11.2014.

The applicant superannuated on 30.06.2015 without being granted the second MACP benefit.

The DTC defended the denial on the ground that his service record was not clear, relying principally on an ACR for 2012–13 containing the remark “Irregular”.

The applicant contended that the adverse ACR had never been communicated to him and that his case had not been placed before the Screening Committee.

1. Whether the DTC could deny the applicant’s second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme by relying on an adverse ACR entry that was not proved to have been communicated to him.

2. Whether the DTC was required to place the applicant’s case before a Screening Committee and undertake a fresh consideration of his eligibility for second MACP from 26.11.2014.

The Tribunal applied the MACP Scheme, under which eligible employees may receive financial upgradations upon completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service, subject to the prescribed suitability and procedural requirements.

It relied on Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, as affirmed in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566, for the principle that every ACR entry, whether adverse or otherwise, must be communicated within a reasonable time so that the employee can make an effective representation.

It further relied on Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421, which requires fair and objective assessment under the MACP scheme and prohibits reliance on uncommunicated adverse remarks to the employee’s detriment.

Accordingly, an uncommunicated adverse ACR cannot ordinarily be used to deny financial upgradation or promotion.

Although the DTC asserted that the ACR for 2012–13 had been handed over to the applicant, it produced no receipt or other reliable proof of communication; its reliance on the destruction of the relevant Peon Book did not establish actual service of the ACR.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s name had not been forwarded to the Screening Committee because of the disputed adverse entry, and that no proper consideration of his claim had therefore taken place.

Applying the principles in Dev Dutt, Sukhdev Singh and M.V. Mohanan Nair, the Tribunal held that the uncommunicated or inadequately proved adverse remark could not lawfully be used against the applicant.

A fresh assessment was consequently necessary after formally communicating the ACR and allowing the applicant an opportunity to represent against it.

The DTC was directed to formally communicate the 2012–13 ACR to the applicant within two weeks, permit him four weeks to submit a representation, and communicate the competent authority’s decision within two weeks thereafter.

The DTC was then directed to convene a review Screening Committee within four weeks to reconsider the applicant’s entitlement to the second MACP with effect from 26.11.2014, uninfluenced by its earlier decision.

If found fit, the applicant was to be granted the second MACP and all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and pension.

If the decision remained adverse, he was given liberty to challenge it in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.