AMRIK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved on his being ignored for promotion from Inspector Grade II Inspector Grade 1. The contentions urged at the bar on both sides indicate that the petitioner was not considered for promotion and in preference his juniors, namely respondents 5 to 8 were promoted. All these gentlemen have since retired. It is contended by Mr. Dhir that the ACRs for the year 1981 and 1982 were spoiled and he got adverse remarks as a consequence of personal vindictiveness and bias which Mr. G.D. Shukla entertained against the petitioner. It is further contended by Mr. Dhir that in respect of year 1982, the adverse remarks which are noted at the back of the last page were never communicated to him and even the remarks which were communicated were so communicated after a considerable delay of about 6 months whereas according to rules any adverse report should be communicated as soon as possible and as per the internal instructions of the Department within one month of the report.

(2.) I have had an occasion to see the original reports and I find that during the tenure of Mr. G.D. Shukla the C.Rs. of the petitioner have not been good at all and judging from those reports, it could be justifiably contended that the petitioner was rightly ignored, but there is another aspect i.e. that the report of 1981 contains Mr. Shukla's own assessment against each criterian in his own hand and his own remarks which are adverse to the petitioner. Surprisingly this adverse report was never communicated to the petitioner. In the circumstances, to my mind, the adverse report relating to the year 1981 could not be looked into. Furthermore the adverse comments which were communicated to him in respect of 1982 were also incomplete because adverse remarks noted at the last page were never conveyed to the petitioner and it connot be said that these remarks could not prejudice the minds of the Members of the Board which was entrusted with the task of promotion.

(3.) Since the petitioner was to be considered from one grade to another grade in the same rank and not one rank to another rank, only 3 years' CRs were considered and on going through the three CRs I find that only one recommended him for promotion. The Board could be misled by considering only the C.Rs. for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983.