GIAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Deputy Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force, prays that the adverse remarks recorded against him be ordered to be expunged and that the respondents be directed to promote him to "the post of Second-in-Command..... with effect from 11.12.1992 i.e. the date when juniors.... were promoted." A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Deputy Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1974. On February 14, 1989, the petitioner had carried out an operation against the terrorists in Ajnala Sub Division. His performance was commended. The Department conveyed appreciation of him vide letters dated September 21, 1990 and November 15, 1990. At about the same time, the petitioner was communicated adverse remarks vide letters dated February 12, 1990 and February 13, 1991. Copies of the two communications are at Annexures P.5 and P.6 with the writ petition. On receipt of these communications, the petitioner represented. These representations were considered. Vide letter dated February 14, 1991, the petitioner was conveyed the decision regarding his representation of June 20, 1990. The remarks recorded against him were partly expunged. Vide letter dated June 15, 1991, he was informed that his representation against the remarks communicated vide letter dated February 13, 1991 had been rejected. Undaunted, the petitioner persisted. He submitted a representation on September 30, 1991. He sent a reminder. Vide letter dated July 1, 1992, the petitioner was informed that the remarks had been partly expunged. On October 28, 1992, the Departmental Promotion Committee met to consider the claims of Deputy Commandants for promotion to the post of Second-in-Command. The petitioner's claim was considered. His name was, however, not brought on the panel.

(3.) The petitioner complains that the adverse remarks had been recorded against him on account of extraneous considerations and that he has been arbitrarily superseded. In particular, the petitioner has alleged that "Shri J.R. Soni (respondent No. 4) levelled baseless charges against" him. In paragraph 5, the petitioner has reiterated that "the adverse remarks recorded by Shri J.R. Soni (respondent No. 4)" were "for the reasons other than the administrative or the working of ...." The petitioner further alleges that there was no material on the basis of which the remarks could be sustained. In fact, he had been conveyed appreciation letters by the Inspector General as well as the Additional Director General. According to him, the remarks had not been recorded "on the basis of the performance". Since the remarks were not validly recorded, the petitioner maintains that the Departmental Promotion Committee had arbitrarily over-looked him for promotion. On these premises, the petitioner prays that the remarks be ordered to be expunged and that the respondents should be directed to promote him with effect from the date the persons junior to him had been promoted.