Back
1997 Supreme(Del) 738
High Court Of Delhi
M.P.SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1909 of 1995
Decided On : 09/05/1997
A.K.VALI, BALRAM GUPTA, Ranbir Singh
Headnote:Army Regulations, 1987 (Revised) — Para 108 — Selection — PROMOTION — Brigadier to Major General — Consideration of ACRs — Guidelines — Superseded — Claimed promotion — Non-statutory complaints lodged — Rejection of — Denial of natural justice — Pleaded expunction of remarks by Major General written under influence — Rejected — Alleged performance not properly assessed — Special report — Consideration of — Delayed — Effect of — Violation of principal of natural justice — Selection of — Consideration of Selection Board — Contended assessment not objective — Not found fit — Writ petition under Article 226 — Constitution of India — Service profile — Non-impleadment of certain officers — Effect of — Obtaining of foreward book by petitioner violated horns of service — Remarks quashed — Complaints duly considered — Writ petition allowed.
Held: There is no allegation of malafide against any of the members of the Selection Board, Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the recommendations made by the Selection Board. Against his non-selection and supersession the petitioner filed complaints, which were duly considered in the light of the grievances made.
In the absence of those officers being parties, it will not be permissible for the petitioner to press for those allegations of personal malafides against the, officers concerned.
It may be observed that no rale or administrative order has been brought to our notice for recording of reasons while rejecting a representation. In the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the Competent Authority to record reasons for rejecting a representation made against an adverse entry, the Competent Authority isnt under any obligation to record reasons. Record does suggest that all points raised by the petitioner were duly noted and considered by the Competent Authority in exhaustive notes, which are available on the file. Comparing the earlier service pro-file, vis-a-vis, the impugned ACRs it was noticed that there was no inconsistency in the Box Grading given to the petitioner for the relevant period for which the complaints had been made by the petitioner. The petitioners complaint in the light of the comments made thereon by the Officer forwarding the same to the Competent Authority were duly considered by the Competent Authority and were rejected. Representations have been rejected on due consideration in a fair and just manner. The order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. In the absence of any statutory order or statutory provisions requiring the Competent Authority to record reasons or to indicate the same to the petitioner, no exception can be taken to the order rejecting the representations merely on the ground of absence of reasons. The complaints were not statutory. Statutory complaints are made only under Section 27 of the Army Act. Both were non-statutory complaints. The same were rejected and rejection was communicated through annex-ures P-10 and P-12. As the complaints were duly considered no grievance can be made that in the absence of reasons or communication thereof the same are bad.
(September 5, 1997) 1997 (TLS)100792
1997-DRJ-43-29
M. P. SINGH Vs. Union of India
Devinder Gupta, J.
( 1 ) THIS petition instituted on 16. 5. 1995 seeks to quash annexures P-5 (letter dated 4. 12. 1991 from Maj. Gen. K. N. Sardana, Additional Director, General Army Education to the petitioner), P-10 (Communication dated 12. 2. 1993 rejecting the petitioner s non- statutory complaint dated 14. 7. 1992 against ACR for period 1990/91), P-12 (Communication dated 31. 3. 1993 rejecting the petitioner s non-statutory complaint dated 26. 11. 1992 against A. C. R. for the period 1991-92) and P-20 (Communication dated 14. 3. 1995 by which the petitioner was informed about the result of his interview with Chief of Army Staff that he had not been found fit for promotion to higher grade ). Consequently the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions against the respondents to take into consideration the special inputs (annexure P-15 and annexure P-16) in assessing his suitability for the post of Major General; to expunge the report made by Major General K. N. Sardana, and the report alleged to have been written against the petitioner under his influence; to consider the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Major General and to post him as such against the post, which was due to fall vacant on 1. 7. 1995 and to permit the petitioner to publish the book written by him on the History of Indian Military Academy. After the respondents filed their reply the petitioner filed rejoinder in which a further prayer was made for quashing annexure P-23 (communication dated 24. 1. 1995 conveying rejection of his statutory complaint dated 19. 5. 1994 against his supersession to the rank of Maj. General ).
( 2 ) IT is the petitioner s case that he joined National Defence Academy in 1957 and on passing out from Indian Military Academy in 1961 he got his permanent commission in Artillery in Indian Army on 11. 6. 1961. During service the petitioner completed his graduation in Arts, did M. A. in History; M. Sc. in Defence Studies; and completed his Ph. D. in the field of Military History. Petitioner also attended the Defence Services Staff College at Wellington. From the rank of Major to Lt. Colonel and from Lt. Colonel to Colonel and from Colonel to Brigadier the petitioner got his promotions as a fresh candidate. He was promoted as Brig. in 1987. Since all promotions till the rank of Brigadier were got by him on the basis of first Board, it obviously implies that he had flawless and immaculate service record. He was due for promotion to the rank of Major General in 1992, which promotion, according to the petitioner, was denied to him arbitrarily. His case is that throughout he had given immaculate performance and was promoted on first consideration. He would not have suddenly become so bad to deny him promotion, which according to him, must have been due to the circumstances as narrated by him in the petition, namely, the episode of writing a book on the History of Indian Military Academy.
( 3 ) IT is alleged that he was posted as Head of Academic Department of Indian Military Academy (for short ima ) in June 1988 and continued to occupy this position till October, 1990. A team of officers had been assigned the task of writing History of IMA but the Director General of Military Training did not find the work in order and consequently the same was rejected. The petitioner though on academic assignment and also having research oriented mind, suo motu undertook the work of writing a book on IMA. On one of his visits to IMA Major General K. N. Sardana, Additional Director General Army Education was apprised of the work. Rather than appreciating petitioner s effort, in the presence of other officers, Major General Sardana remarked that the petitioner was wasting his time in writing History of IMA. This work had not been assigned to him officially. It was also observed that the petitioner should rather and better concentrate on his work as
