PRAKASH PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 31. 10. 2005, passed by the learned single Judge in WP (C) No. 38 (SH)2002 and WP (C) No. 120 (SH)2003 dismissing both the writ petitions.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the present writ appellant joined Border Security Force (BSF) as Assistant Commandant on 2. 1. 1995. On completion of his initial training he was posted at 37 Bn BSF Srinagar (Nishat Bagh ). When the unit was shifted to Shillong in August, 1997, the appellant was deployed at BOP Lyngkhat, Dawki, in the East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, where he was made Company Commander on 19. 1. 98. On the next day of his being made Company Commander i. e. on 20. 1. 1998, one H. Baite a constable, No. 9009853 joined his Unit/company on transfer from 55 Bn. BSF. The said constable was detailed for Sentry duty to keep watch on the Cipher Box and the Treasury Chest in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd June 1998. However, the said constable instead of guarding Cipher Box and the Treasury chest made off with cash money amounting to Rs. 4,89,053/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Fifty Three) only, one 9mm pistol along with 95 rounds of ammunition kept in a coy Kote by tempering the latch and bolt of the door. A Court of Inquiry instituted in connection with the said incident indicated the appellant on two counts namely that the appellant had failed to detail double sentry at night and that he had failed to chain the Treasury Chest. The Court of Inquiry accordingly, recommended communication of displeasure of the appropriate authority and recovery of 5% of the total loss to the Government i. e. Rs. 4,89,053/- from his salary.

(3.) PURSUANT to the Court of Inquiry Report a Record of Evidence (ROE) was ordered vide order dated Nil March 1999 and on completion of the same a show cause notice dated 21. 8. 2000 was issued calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why DG's Displeasure should not be conveyed to him. The show cause by the appellant in reply was turned down as being unsatisfactory and vide letter dated 26. 01. 2001, DG's Displeasure was communicated to him. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the Home Secretary Government of India through proper channel also met with the same fate as the same was rejected as being devoid of merit. In the meantime before the DG's displeasure was conveyed a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) sat on 16. 2. 2001 to consider and recommend the case of promotion of eligible Assistant Commandants to the post of Deputy Commandants. However, the name of the appellant did not find place in the list of recommendees as there was adverse remark in his ACR for the year 1997-98 and he was superseded by 38 officers junior to him. Similarly the next DPC which sat on 23. 4. 2002 also did not recommend the name of the appellant as there was adverse remark in his ACR for the year 2001-02 and as a result he was superseded by another batch of 75 members of officers junior to him. A representation addressed to DG BSF thereafter seeking justice failed to evoke any response. Two writ petitions - one challenging the penalty imposed on him namely, recovery of Rs. 24,792 from his salary and communication of DG's Displeasure and the other for quashing the adverse remarks in his ACR for the years 1996-97 and 2001-02 and DPC recommendation dated 16. 2. 2001, were both dismissed by common judgment and order dated 30. 10. 2005 passed by the learned single Judge. in (1) WP (C) 120 (SH)2003. It is against this order that the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant.