MADAN PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS L.P.A. is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4969/1996, dated 5 -12 -1996, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and held that the statutory complaint with regard to supersession of the appellant was rejected on 3 -1 -1996 and as such the entries made in the A.C. Rs. for 1991 - 1992 cannot be examined in the writ petition in 1996 while questioning supersession at the belated stage. Aggrieved by this order, the present L.P.A. has been filed by the appellant petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant petitioner was enrolled in the Corps Military service on 7 -8 -1994 and he earned all his promotion upto the rank of Havaldar. He has given details about his postings from time to time at various places. It is submitted that he qualified in the Non -Commissioned Officers Instructor's Course at C.M.P. Centre, Bangalore and was awarded 'BY' Grading which is above average. It is alleged that he also qualified in the Platoon Commander's Course held from 30 -8 -1992 to 17 -10 -1992. It is alleged that from 1974 till 13 -6 -1994, he has been awarded above average except for the assessment in his A.C.R. for the year 1991 -1992. It is alleged that the petitioner was posted to 4 'Indep' Armoured Brigade Provost Unit in August, 1991. At that time respondent No. 3 was his Commanding Officer. It is alleged that petitioner performed the duties of Coy Havaldar Major for about 2 months, to the entire satisfaction of his superior officers. It is alleged that petitioner was due for promotion as Naib Subedar from 1 -3 -1994. It is alleged that as per para 2 of Army Order 114/1997 which deals with the initiation of A.C.R. of Non -Commissioned Officers, the N.C.Os. should have above average reports. It is also pointed out that as per the circular of the Army dated 18 -12 -1985, promotion to the post of Naib Subedar is made on the basis of 3 out of 5 year's reports which should be above average. No report should be lower than average in the last three years and the officer should be recommended for promotion in the last three year's reports. It is alleged that Promotion Board of the petitioner held its meeting in 1994 and the petitioner was not informed about his supersession. It is alleged that when he came to know that the person junior to him was promoted, he submitted a statutory complaint on 13 -6 -1994 against his A.C.Rs. for 1991 -1992 and also against his supersession. Copy of the same is filed as Annexure -P -4. He also placed on record the remarks of Col. Ram Singh who was the Commanding Officer of the petitioner. It is alleged that the statutory complaint was rejected by respondent No. 1 on 3 -1 -1996 (Annexure P -7). It is alleged that no performance counselling/adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner as required by the Army Circular from time to time. It is also pointed out that assessment of Initiating and Reviewing Officer for the year 1991 -1992 operated against the interests of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and R.O. should have given performance counselling to the petitioner and they should have communicated the adverse remarks to him. Therefore, petitioner has challenged those remarks also and also prayed that his supersession be set aside.

(3.) REPLY has been filed by the respondents. In their reply, the respondents have pointed out that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Subedar Major was considered on 26 -3 -1993, 17/18 -3 -1994 and 21 -9 -1995 and he was not found fit by the promotion Committee on the basis of the reports. The respondents have given the Gradings of the Petitioner right from 1985 to 1996 as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_515_TLMPH0_1999.htm</FRM>