ROHTASH VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as ASI/Clerk through departmental test on 10th May, 1989. The petitioner completed his 5 years regular service in that post with excellent record and became entitled to be promoted to the post of S.I./Clerk in accordance with rules of promotion. 2. On 1st May, 1996, the petitioner claims to have qualified in the departmental test held for promotion to the post of S.I. but this test was cancelled by Mr. Sehgal, who, according to the petitioner, had some personal animosity towards the petitioner as in December, 1995 when the petitioner was discussing some official matter in his official capacity with Mr. Jasrotia, the then DIG Faridkot, BSF in his office, Mr. Sehgal, who was sitting there in civil clothes, intervened in the discussion to which the petitioner had objected politely but Mr. Sehgal took it to his heart and he always obstructed the progress of the petitioner. Subsequently, Mr. Sehgal joined as DIG, Faridkot and caused serious problems to the petitioner. With an intent to harass the petitioner, on 11th June, 1997, Mr. Sehgal transferred the petitioner on administrative grounds. The said order was without any authority and the same was subsequently cancelled vide order dated 28th June, 1996. On 14th February, 1997, the petitioner was tried by SSFC under Section 19(b) and 30(b) of BSF Act,1968. He was found guilty and was punished for 3 years forfeiture of service. Vide order dated 25th May, 1997, Mr. Sehgal set aside the conviction of the petitioner and ordered retrial in flagrant violation of the rules and principles of natural justice. The petitioner admitted his guilt and was awarded punishment. No appeal was preferred against the said order. The punishment was enhanced to four years forfeiture of service for the purpose of promotion and for pension and further a severe reprimand was issued. The said punishment was accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner was not permitted to take departmental examination for promotion to the post of SI/Clerk held in the year 1998. On 22nd February, 2001, the petitioner qualified the departmental test. However, he was declared unfit by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 6th August, 2003. The Departmental Promotion Committee, which met on 24th March, 2004, again did not consider the case of petitioner for promotion on the ground that petitioner had not completed the period of punishment whereas the actual period of punishment commenced from 9th January, 1988 and ended on 8th January, 2002. The petitioner was communicated with the order of Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated 25th May, 2004 However, the juniors of the petitioner were promoted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent, particularly dated 24th March, 2004 and the order dated 25th May, 2004 vide which the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of SI/Clerk was rejected by the respondent in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. This compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present writ petition.

(2.) I have been directed to say that the documents of ASI (M) RS Gulia of 83 BN. BSF with other departmental tests qualified ASI(M) were produced before the DPC held on 24.3.2004 for empanelment for promotion to the grade of SI(M) for the vacancy year 2003-04. The DPC had assessed the documents of above applicant alongwith ACRs for the period of consideration from 1997-98 and adjudged him unfit for empanelment as the impact of major punishment for 5 years was upto 9.1.2003 whereas the eligibility criteria to be considered was upto 1.1.2003. Therefore the plea of the applicant that his ACR and SR of five years are clear as required in DPC is due to his misconception. Further due to cadre restructuring of combatant ministerial Staff no vacancy of SI(M) anticipated during the vacancy year 2004-05, due to which no DPC was conducted for empanelment of ASI(M) for promotion to the post of SI(M) .......... authority desired that ASI (M) RS Gulia should .... DG BSF during his next visit to Punjab Ftr..

(3.) In view of the above, it is requested to inform above facts to the applicant concerned through his unit accordingly.