CUTTACK: Senior IAS officer Alka Panda, currently working as Chief Electoral Officer has moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) here challenging the action of the State government in recording “adverse remarks” in her annual confidential report (ACR) for 2004-05 while she was working as secretary of SC and ST welfare department of the State.
Alleging that the adverse remarks were recorded out of malafide and extraneous considerations for the purpose of harassing and denying her promotion to the rank of Principal Secretary, Ms. Panda in her petition has maintained that two junior officers of her batch and two others from the junior batch have in the meantime superseded her.
Seeking relief by way of quashing the adverse remarks recorded in her confidential report, the 1983-batch IAS officer has prayed that her case may be considered for promotion to the rank of Principal Secretary and restoring the financial and other benefits with effect from the date when her juniors got promoted.
Although, the Tribunal after admitting the application of Panda had issued notices to the State government in February this year to file counters within four weeks, the State government has not responded to the notices yet.
Moreover, the matter has also not been listed again for hearing over these days.
It may be mentioned here that in her 12-page application, Ms. Panda has raised several pertinent points as to how emphasis is being given to impugned adverse ACR which itself is a document that has been coloured only for the purpose of stigmatising an officer.
She has stated that the adverse remarks—recorded against her for a period of six months from the entire assessment period for 2004-05—are subjective, personal, biased, not founded upon facts and without objective assessment of her performance.
Moreover, Ms. Panda has maintained that although, she submitted her self-appraisal-cum-ACR on August 16, 2006, the adverse remarks against her were communicated to her on May 19, 2009, after a gap of almost four years.
Ms. Panda has also alleged that intentionally and deliberately her case was not considered for promotion to the rank of Principal Secretary by the screening committee meeting chaired by the then Chief Secretary held on December 10, 2008, though she had by then completed 25 years of service and no such adverse remarks were recorded against her till that date.