Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1390
High Court of Delhi
GITA MITTAL & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
Rajeev Bhatnagar
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P.(C) No. 5913 of 2011
Decided on : 23-10-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sachin Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate.
The proper communication of ACR gradings and compliance with relevant legal provisions are crucial in determining the validity of promotions and ACR assessments.
Headnote:
ACR - Promotion - [Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 3(1)(b), Section 3(1)(c), Section 3(1)(d)] - The court discussed the adverse annual confidential report (ACR) of the petitioner for the period January 01, 2006 to November 03, 2006 and January 01, 2007 to December 31, 2007. The court highlighted the relevant provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, specifically Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), and 3(1)(d) which govern promotions and ACR gradings. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash adverse ACRs for 2006 and 2007, reject the order of transfer, and challenge the rejection of his representation. The petitioner alleged bias and mala fide in the ACR gradings and subsequent non-promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no bias or mala fide in the ACR gradings and rejected the petitioner's claims. The court held that the ACR gradings were communicated in accordance with the law and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the ACR gradings, alleged bias and mala fide, and the non-promotion of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the proper communication of ACR gradings, absence of bias or mala fide, and compliance with relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents quashing the adverse ACR for the period 1/1/2006 to 3/11/2006 and for the period 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 and direct the respondent consider the petitioners case for promotion to higher grade/rank retrospectively since his junior was promoted the petitioner to the rank of Asst. Commandant, (Exe.).
(b) Quash and set aside the order of rejection of representation dated 20/08/2010 and 22.10.2010 in appeal dated 23.06.2010.
(c) Pass Order directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for promotion on the basis of self-assessment and on the basis of earlier ACRs excluding the ACRs of 2006 and 2007.
(d) Granting the cost of the petition.”
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as Sub-Inspector on June 30, 1987. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Inspector in November 1996. The petitioner was posted at Indian Oil Corporation Plant at Panipat vide order dated May 21, 2005. On September 15, 2006 he was transferred to DHEP Dulhasti, J&K before the usual term of three years in Panipat expired.
3. On February 01, 2007 the petitioner was informed that he was transferred to DHEP Dulhasti on the basis of an adverse annual confidential report for the period January 01, 2006 to November 03, 2006.
4. The petitioner represented to the Inspector General against the adverse remarks for the aforesaid period which was the basis for his transfer. He had sought for cancellation of his transfer order. The same was rejected. The final rejection letter with regard to his representation was dated October 24, 2007.
5. The petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.928/2008 before this Court wherein he had claimed the following reliefs:-
“(a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents quashing the adverse ACR for the period 1/1/2006 to 3/11/2006.
(b) Quash and set aside the order of rejection of appeal dated 24/10/2007.
(c) Quash and set aside the order of transfer dated 15/9/2006 and the order of rejection dated 23/4/2007, as it is malafide, arbitrary, biased and punitive in nature.”
6. The grounds of challenge in the said writ petition were that; no show cause notice was ever issued stating any shortcomings in so far as his working is concerned, nor any communication was made of the adverse remark to the petitioner, which were only conveyed after his transfer to Dulhasti.
7. During the pendency of the said writ petition the petitioner confined his relief to quashing of adverse ACRs for the period January 01, 2006 to November 03, 2006 and the subsequent order rejecting the representation on October 24, 2007.
8. This Court had called for the records and after perusing the same was of the view the remarks of the Senior Reviewing Officer who had rated him “below average” for the reason, that he was transferred out on adverse ground, was directed to be struck off from the ACR of the petitioner. This Court consequently quashed the order dated October 24, 2007 without effecting the transfer of the petitioner to Dulhasti. The operative para of the order of this Court dated November 26, 2008 in WP(C) No.928/2008 is reproduced as under:-
“It is, thus, our considered view that the ACR in question does not have any adverse remark and it cannot be said that the SRO can without giving any reasons opine that the transfer order itself should be treated as an adverse remark. This is apart from the fact that at no stage was any notice issued to the petitioner other than when the petitioner made a representation.
A writ or mandamus is issued quashing the remarks of the SRO that the transfer order itself should be treated as an adverse remark and the same be accordingly struck off from the ACR of the petitioner. The consequence of the same is that the order in appeal dated 24
