RAJINDER SINGH HUNDAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , an Inspector in the Border Security Force was attached with the Intelligence Bureau (IB) on deputation from 23 -12 -1991 to 22 -6 -1997. During this period from 1 -4 -1997 he was posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. He remained on active duty from 1 -4 -1997 to 21 -6 -1997 but absented from 22 -4 -1997. On the basis of reports alleging that the appellant had issued fake visas on receipt of illegal gratification followed by unauthorized absence, the Reporting Officer rated him below average . After the remark was communicated to him the appellant filed writ petition, SWP No. 2052/2001 for quashing of the remark. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and he has come in letters patent appeal.

(2.) MR . A. M. Dar appearing for the appellant submitted that in terms of instructions contained in para 28 of Annual Confidential Report Procedure Booklet, 1990 -91 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Reporting Officer can write the remark/ACR only if the officer under his command has worked for 90 days during the relevant period. In the instant case, as the appellant worked under the Reporting Officer only for 83 days, the latter was not competent to write the remark/ACR.

(3.) A similar submission was made before the learned Single Judge which the learned Judge rejected observing that by reason of absence from duty the Reporting Officer does not lose control over his subordinate. Absence from duty whether unauthorized does not divest him of the command and the authority to proceed against him even during the absence period. We endorse the opinion of the learned Single Judge.