JANGLUN SINGSON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned CGC for the respondent.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the adverse entry in the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 which had the effect of downgrading his APAR from "outstanding" to "very good".

(3.) In the writ petition it is projected that the petitioner is a direct recruit BSF officer of the year 1995 batch. After successful completion of his training he was posted as Assistant Commandant, BSF. At the relevant point of time, after getting promotion, he was holding the post of Second-in-Command (2IC for short) of 61 Bn BSF, the post he was holding as on the date of filing of the writ petition. In the writ petition it is projected that two incidents had taken place near the area of operation of the 61 Battalion BSF in course of anti- naxal operation in Odisha. The first incident occurred on 16.11.2013, when an information was received that an informal meeting of the naxals was convened with the civilians in village Badapada which is stated to be 16 kms away from the camp. At the relevant point of time, it is projected that the Battalion Commander was on leave from 30.10.2013 to 08.12.2013 and accordingly, the petitioner had to head the operation. However, the State police disappeared from the point of start of operation and in view of the direction contained in Memo No.11-18015-48/10-SA (NM) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Naxal Management Division dated 03.08.2010 to the effect that for any naxal operation, the force may have a ratio of 1:3 between the State Police Force and CPMF. Accordingly, on being informed of the absence of the State Police, the petitoiner had called off the combing operation.