It was pointed out that the CAT, Patna Bench by order dated 27.05.2002 directed the authority number to take numbere of the order of caution 2 dated 22.09.1997 and the order of adverse remarks dated 09.06.1998 for the period 01.04.1997 to 13.10.1997 while companysidering the appellant for promotion.
In March, 2003, there was a regular D.P.C. and the appellant was found fit for promotion with the same entries and accordingly promoted to Higher Administrative Grade Group A and later retired from service.
The appellant was number found eligible for promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade A. He filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as CAT at Patna alleging that he was number companysidered for promotion for the reason that there were two entries in his C.R. i.e. one on 22.09.1997 and another on 08.02.1998.
It is number in dispute that the CAT, Patna Bench passed an order recommending the authority number to rely on the order of caution dated 22.09.1997 and the order of adverse remarks dated 09.06.1998.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Leave granted.
Pursuant to the direction of the CAT, Patna Bench on 09.09.2002 review of P.C. was held and the appellant was number found suitable for promotion.
In the light of the said order, the appellant companytended that these two adverse entries should number have been companysidered by the D.P.C. He further companytended that through out the period he was given entry of good.
