DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a Writ of Certiorari, the petitioner has assailed the confidential reports recorded by his Initiating and Reviewing Officers for the period May 1990 to December, 1990 and from June, 1992 to May, 1994 on the ground that the same are subjective and in violation of the instructions issued by the Army Headquarters. A Mandamus directing the respondents to hold a fresh Selection for considering the petitioner's case for promotion to the next higher rank of Lt. Colonel has also been prayed for.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as a Major in the Indian Army. He was, between May, 1990 to December, 1990, posted in 97, Independent Field Workshop, AD Group. He continued in the said formation for the period June 1992 to May, 1994 also. A confidential report was initiated on the petitioner by Col. N.P.S. Siddhu, Commanding Officer of 51, Field Workshop for the period between May 1990 and December, 1990. After the transfer of Col. Siddhu, a similar report regarding the petitioner was initiated by Lt. Col. V. Khullar for the period 1992-93 and 1993-94. The petitioner did not admittedly make any grievance against the said reports at any time till his case was considered for promotion to the next higher rank of Lt. Col. in the year 2000. As a matter of fact, he did not make any grievance against the reports till he filed a statutory complaint in April, 2001. The said complaint was examined by the Government of India and rejected in terms of an order dated 15th July, 2002, impugned in this petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute a Selection Board for a fresh consideration of his case for promotion.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. Mr. Ramesh fairly conceded that, in so far as the challenge to the ACR for the period May 1990 to December, 1990 was concerned, the same is rendered academic as the said report was not taken as an input while considering the petitioner's claim for promotion in the year 2000. He, however, argued that the ACR recorded by Lt. Col. Khullar for the period 1992-93 and 1993-94 was legally defective in that the initiating officer was not competent to initiate a report as he was himself facing a Court of Inquiry during the relevant period. He urged that pursuant to the said Court of Inquiry proceedings, the officer was not only awarded a severe reprimand but had been removed from command for a period of nearly five months between June 1993 to November, 1993. Any report by Lt. Col. Khullar for the said period was, in any case, unjustified as the petitioner had not served under him, which service was an essential pre- condition for the initiation of a proper report.