BALWANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Commandant in Border Security Force. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. Commandant. When a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, he was not promoted. It is this not promotion, which has led the petitioner to approach this court. The petitioner submits that now he was visited with two orders. One passed by the Inspector General and the other by the Director General, conveying their dis -pleasure. It is submitted that these could not stand in his way in getting higher promotion. Reliance is being placed on Annexure R. 3 which lays down the scope of instructions dealing with the subject as to how and in what manner, an order conveying the Director Generals displeasure is to be dealt with.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that for certain lapses attributed to the petitioner, a staff court an Enquiry was held. However, looking at the overall matter instead of proceeding to a logical end, the petitioner was given a show cause notice asking him to show cause as to why the Director Generals displeasure be not conveyed to him. He was given an opportunity to submit his appeal or representation. Ultimately, an order was passed by which the Director Generals displeasure was conveyed to him.

(3.) THE petitioner as indicated above submits that notwithstanding the conveying of displeasure he was eligible for promotion. The displeasure would stand in his way only if it was for a conduct which may indicate element of dishonesty, pecuniary gain, abuse of power of authority and moral delinquency. It is submitted that as none of these attributes were present in the displeasure which was conveyed to the petitioner, therefore, this could not be taken into consideration for denying him the promotion.