( 1 ) THE short point raised in this writ petition is whether the promotion of the petitioner could be vwithheldor deferred on the plea that CBI report was against him particularly when as a sequal of CBI report the petitioner had already been awardedcensure of "reproof" ?

( 2 ) TO answer this question the brief facts relevant for determination of the same are that the petitioner joined Indian Air Force on 1/12/1961. In 1979 he was selected as a Member of theselection Committee constituted for the purchase of Jagar Fighterair Craft, In 1984 he was selected as officer Incharse of Advanceelectronics Laboratory at Palam Airport known as AMSE. The Electronic Air Craft is an important equipment for striking ability of the Air Craft. The petitioner was associated as Technical Expert for theselection, inspection adn recommendation of the craft that was proposed to be purchased for bringing the Indian Air Force on thepedestal of superior striking ability. In 1989 the Indian Air Forcecondacted an air defence exercise, however, it was not successful. Hence the task to find out the causes of its failue and poor performancewas given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his report and furnished reason for the failure to be poor planning and wrong location of Radars. The responsibility cf the operational planning wasfound to be that of Air Marshal S. K. Kaul- Since responsibilily ofthe failure was levelled against Mr. Kaul, he became biased againstthe petitioner. The Air Marshal S. K. Kaul at that time i. e. infebruary, 1994 was the Chief of the Air Staff. In February, 1994 itselfthe Promotion Board of the petitioner met. On accountof this bias of the Chief of the Staff and in order to avengethe senior officers. manipulated the denial of promotion to the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner, opined against the intended procurement of Collins HF-9000 R/t sets for Air Force Helicopters and foralh (made by HAL ). Because of this opinion he earned enemiesthough Government benefited in crores by his advise. Because ofnon procurement of Collins the top brass of Indian Air Force turnedagainst him. This bias and prejudice of the top brass created insurmountable obstruction in his promotion. When posted at AMSE thepetitioner brought about redical changes in the administration andapproach to the problems faced by AMSE. The petitioner not onlyimproved the Laboratory but also successfully evolved a technique ofrepairing Air Boarne Electronic System indigenously. The otherwiseunscrviceable AN-32 fleet was brought back into active operation. Because of this innovative achievement of the petitioner, his name wasrecommended for the award of AVSM. That the officers superior tohim who had failed to achieve such a result conspired to degrade himby foul means. False and anonymous letters were written against him. The petitioner was posted out of the Advace Electronic Laboratory ofthe Indian Force in 1990. In 1992 petitioner was selected by Ministry of Defence to undergo the Highest Level National Defencecollege Course for 1993. The candidates wh were selected for thissourse were those officers who had very high outstanding performance and prospect for serving the nation for not less than five years or soin top ladder. The petitioner passed this course of National Defencecollegs in January, 1994 and thereafter was posted to Air Headquarter. Unfortunate for the petitioner when Promotion Board metin 1994 he was ignored on account of the bias and due to anonymousletters written against him by Sqn. Leader D. K. Ganguli whom thepetitioner pulled up for slackness, negligence and derelietion of duty. Mr. Ganguli in league with Sqn. Leader Goel and other subordinate to the petitioners manipulated prejudice against him. They got a Court of Enquiry initiated against him which ended with the finding thatthe allegation of procedural irregularity levelled against him were him were false. The matter had been enquired into by the C. B. I, in 1090. Thechief of