KULDEEP SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per facts involved, the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the Border Security Force [Hereinafter referred to as 'BSF'], communicated the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report [Hereinafter referred to as 'APAR'] for the period from 1/4/2011 to 31/3/2012 and was also required to make a representation qua the same vide letter dtd. 17/12/2012 issued by the Commandant of 32 BN of BSF [Hereinafter referred to as 'Commandant'].

(2.) On 9/1/2013, the petitioner made a representation to the Commandant, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General, Station Headquarters, [Hereinafter referred to as 'DIG, SHQ'] BSF Jammu, vide order dtd. 3/4/2013.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner made other representations too, which, on 5/12/2018, were rejected by the Spl. Director General [Hereinafter referred to as 'DG'] (Western Command), BSF. Undeterred, the petitioner once again made another representation before the DG, BSF on 6/9/2016 assailing the legality of the order dtd. 5/12/2018 as also the concerned APAR. This also, as before proved to be of no avail.