NAUMI SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr N. Kerani Singh, ld. Sr. advocate assisted by Mr. Umakanta appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also Mr. C. Kamal, Id. Sr. CGSC representing the Union of India and others.

(2.) The present case in hand has a chequered history. This is for the second time that the petitioner has to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance with regard to his promotion to the higher post. The petitioner is a Commandant CRPF and has been functioning in the said capacity in 31 Bn. CRPF at Pangei. His only grievance is that he has not been considered for his next promotibn as Additional Dy I.G. by calling the meet of the D.P.C. with retrospective effect because of the down grading in the ACR so reflected was not communicated to him at the opportune moment prior to holding of the DPC meeting from April, 1997 onwards and further more reasons so assigned by the authority concerned for giving such adverse remark reflected by the comparison as claimed so as ultimately put by the reviewing and accepting officer when the reporting officer had not reflected any short comment against the same. It is also the case of the petitioner that for the adverse remark so put for the period from 1.4.96 to 31.3.97 that has already been expunged by the Director General, CRPF side memo No. RA-III-10-97-CR-Cell dated 5.5.99 and as such in keeping with that view of the said expunction, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his promotion with regard to the DPC convened on 28.4.97.

(3.) It is stated that since 1967 the petitioner has been serving in the establishment of CRPF as DSP Commandant, and thereafter as Asstt. Commandant from 21.5.75 and from 3.1.92 has been working as Commandant Selection Cadre. In the gradation list of commandant of selection group appeared on 1.1.96, the petitioner was placed at SI. No. 4. Thereafter as per gradation list of the selection grade Commandant released on 1.11.97, the petitioner was placed at SI. No. 5. Thereafter two disciplinary enquaries were initiated against the petitioner - one is regarding his leave without permission in between the period 1.7.96 to 29.7.96 and the other is for his administrative lapses relating to an incident dated 12.6.96 in which one Inspector lost his life. Be that as it may, there was and adverse remark against the ACS of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.96 to 31.3.97 Which was later on expunged on 5.5.99 is mentioned above. Ultimately the petitioner was denied his legitimate promotion to the post of Addl. D.I.G. with the said grievance the petitioner- approached this Court in C.R. Mb. 652 of 1998 which has disposed of by this Court by a judgment dated 24.6.99 upon hearing the Id. counsel of both the parties. In the said judgment it was held as follows: