RAKESH PAL RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 10.5.97 and 29.7.97 by which the respondent No. 5 to 41 have been promoted to the rank of 2nd-in- Command in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short "CRPF").

(2.) The facts briefly are that on 8.10.84, the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police, CRPF. The post was re-designated as Assistant Commandant. He was then promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant of CRPF in February, 1992. A gradaton list of Deputy Commandant was prepared and circulated on 1.1.95 in which the petitioner was shown as senior to the respondent Nos. 5 to 41 in the rank of Deputy Commandant. But on 7.4.96 a Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "DPC") was held to consider promotion from the rank of Deputy Commandant to the 2nd-in-Command in CRPF. Several Officers in the rank of Deputy Commandant including the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5 to 41 were considered by the DPC. But the petitioner was not recommended for such promotion while respondent Nos. 5 to 41 were recommended for promotion and were promoted by the impugned order dated 10.5.96 to the rank of 2nd-in-Command in CRPF. On 1.6.97, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of CRPF against supersession. Since there was no reply from the Director General. CRPF. the petitioner sent a reminder dated 18.8.97. The petitioner was finally informed by letter dated 29.7.97 that he was considered by the DPC for promotion but he was not found not free from vigilance angle and that he could not be promoted and. therefore, he was not brought on the panel for promotion. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief.

(3.) Mr D.K. Bhartacharya. learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that just before the DPC was held, vigilance certificate was called for from the Commandant. 71 Bn. CRPF. Salakati. Kokrajhar and the said Commandant sent vigilance certificate on 7.10.96 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was free from vigilance angle and that no DE/ PE was pending or contemplated against him. Again by signal dated 18.3.97. the Director General. CRPF, called for vigilance certificate in respect of the petitioner and the Commandant. 71 Bn. CRPF, by his letter dated 22.3.97 forwarded the vigilance certificate in respect of the petitioner mentioning therein that he was free from vigilance angle. Hence, the ground for denying the promotion to the petitioner in the communication dated 29.7.97 was actually not correct. Mr Bhattacharya further submitted that it will be clear from the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and in particular paragraphs-6,10 and 12 that some adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner for the period 15.7.91 to 13.2.92 and 13.4.95 to 20.10.95 had been taken into consideration by the DPC for not recommending the case of the petitioner for promotion. He vehemently contended that the said adverse remarks had not communicated to the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner has had no opportunity to make a representation against the said adverse remarks and. therefore, the said adverse remarks could not have been taken into consideration by the DPC for not recommending the petitioner for promotion, In support of the said submission, Mr Bhattacharyya relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji- Vs-State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1622, Amar Kant Choudhury Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 531, Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1988 SC 2060 and UP Jal Nigam- Vs-SC Atri and another, (1999) 1 SCC 241. Mr Bhattacharya further submitted that so far as ACRs of the petitioner for the period from 15.7.91 to 13.2.92 are concerned, adverse entries, if any, for the said period have no significance as once the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant in February, 1992. In support of the said submission, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra- Vs-State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948, in which the Supreme Court has observed that adverse entries, if any, awarded to any employee lose their significance after his promotion to higher post. Finally, Mr Bhattacharya submitted that it will be clear from the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 41 that although the Reporting Officer had recorded some adverse remarks for the aforesaid two periods from 15.7.91 to 13.2.92 and 13.4.95 to 20.10.95, the Reviewing Officers and the Superior Reviewing Officers have over-ruled the said adverse remarks and have instead assessed the petitioner as "Good" and "Very Good" for the aforesaid periods. According to Mr Bhattacharya, therefore, the DPC ought not to have taken into consideration the said adverse remarks which were over-ruled by the Reviewing Officers and the Superior Reviewing Officers.