Back
High Court of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Dig K.P.S. Raghuvanshi
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P.(C) No. 10726 of 2009
Decided on: 04-09-2014
COAST GUARD - PROMOTION - DPC - ACR - AMENDMENT OF ACR CRITERIA - REVIEW OF ACR - MALAFIDES - ARBITRARINESS - LEGALITY - SELECTION BOARD - RECOMMENDATIONS - REVIEW DPC - RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a serving Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Coast Guard, challenged the recommendations of the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) for promotion to the rank of Inspector General (IG) held on 23.07.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and conducted on the basis of amended selection policy just a month prior to the holding of Selection Board. The Petitioner also sought to challenge the actions of the Respondent No.2 (Director General) in endorsing an Annual Confidential Report of the Petitioner covering the period from 1st February, 2008 to 31st January, 2009 despite not having observed the performance of the Petitioner for the mandatory period of 90 days as required under the extant policy, as contained in Coast Guard Order No.4/2005 and other policy instructions regarding writing of confidential reports issued from time to time.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the amendment of ACR criteria in CGO 02/2009 was done clandestinely without examination of such change by the Directorate of Personnel. The sole intention was to facilitate promotion of DIG K.C. Pande, the Respondent No.3 herein, at any cost. The Court also found that the review of ACR of the Petitioner for the period 2008-09 by the Respondent No.2, then Director General in violation of para 54 of CGO 04/2005 to his detriment and resulting in his being punished twice over for the same incident, in the teeth of the refusal of the MoD to accede to the request of the Respondents for grant of dispensation from the working of the aforesaid rule smacks of illegality and arbitrariness.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of ACR criteria in CGO 02/2009 was done legally and in accordance with the prescribed procedure? 2. Whether the review of ACR of the Petitioner for the period 2008-09 by the Respondent No.2 was done in accordance with the prescribed procedure and without any malafides or arbitrariness? 3. Whether the DPC proceedings conducted on 23.07.2009 were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and without any malafides or arbitrariness?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amendment of ACR criteria in CGO 02/2009 was done clandestinely without examination of such change by the Directorate of Personnel. The sole intention was to facilitate promotion of DIG K.C. Pande, the Respondent No.3 herein, at any cost. 2. The Court held that the review of ACR of the Petitioner for the period 2008-09 by the Respondent No.2, then Director General in violation of para 54 of CGO 04/2005 to his detriment and resulting in his being punished twice over for the same incident, in the teeth of the refusal of the MoD to accede to the request of the Respondents for grant of dispensation from the working of the aforesaid rule smacks of illegality and arbitrariness. 3. The Court held that the DPC proceedings conducted on 23.07.2009 were conducted in violation of the MoD directives of 16.04.2009, referred to hereinabove, wherein 03 DIGs of General Duty branch and 01 DIG of Technical Branch were promoted to IG. The Petitioner was placed at 4th position amongst the General Duty branch and thereby left out as there were only 03 vacancies available.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that a review DPC be held within a period of six weeks from today to make recommendations for the three posts, the vacancies in respect of which had occurred on 16.02.2009. The Selection Board would consider all such officers who are in the zone of consideration and within the eligible batch of officers as of 23rd July, 2009 and thereafter make a recommendation by applying the criteria for promotion as per CGO 02/2005.
Reva Khetrapal, J.
1. The Petitioner, a serving Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Coast Guard, has challenged the recommendations of the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) for promotion to the rank of Inspector General (IG) held on 23.07.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and conducted on the basis of amended selection policy just a month prior to the holding of Selection Board. The Petitioner also seeks to challenge the actions of the Respondent No.2 (Director General) in endorsing an Annual Confidential Report of the Petitioner covering the period from 1st February, 2008 to 31st January, 2009 despite not having observed the performance of the Petitioner for the mandatory period of 90 days as required under the extant policy, as contained in Coast Guard Order No.4/2005 and other policy instructions regarding writing of confidential reports issued from time to time. The following prayers are made in the writ petition:
“A) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Respondents and call for records pertaining to Confidential Report on the Petitioner covering the period from 01 Feb 2008 to 31 Jan 2009;
B) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Respondents and quash the report especially endorsement made by RO being ex facie contrary to the policy instructions of Respondents, as contained inter alia in Coast Guard Order No.4 of 2005 and various other policy instructions regarding writing of confidential reports issued from time to time.
C) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Respondents and summon the proceedings of Promotion Board No.1 held on 23.7.09;
D) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Respondents and quash the said Board proceedings being arbitrary and illegal;
E) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Respondents and quash para 7 of Coast Guard Order No.2 of 2009;
F) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Inspector General in accordance with law.
G) Pass such and other orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The Petitioner joined the Coast Guard in the rank of Assistant Commandant in January, 1984. The career graph of the Petitioner as delineated in the petition is as follows. Ever since the date of his joining the Coast Guard and in the course of his unblemished service career spanning nearly 2 scores of years, the Petitioner had an outstanding career and maintained an ascending career graph earning promotion to various ranks at first look based on his ACR grading. The Petitioner was placed first in the merit during the DPC held in the year 2005 for promotion to the rank of DIG. He is presently holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) to which rank he was promoted in the year 2005. The next promotion to which he is eligible to be considered is Inspector General.
3. The Petitioner is an alumni of Naval War College (USA). He was the first Coast Guard Officer to be selected for this course based on outstanding performance and his position vis-à-vis other officers in the panel. The Petitioner was awarded the Tatrakshak Medal by the President of India on 15th August, 2007 for meritorious service and was also commended on two separate occasions by the Director General for his exceptional work. In May, 2006, he was first in merit among DIGs and was shortlisted for National Command College (NCC) Korea. Subsequently, in September, 2008, he was once again first in merit amongst the 5th Batch officers for National Defence College (NDC) Course at New Delhi.
4. On 16.02.2009, post the 26/11 attack on Mumbai, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approved one post of Addl. DG, three posts of IG (GD) and one post of IG (Tech) and communicated
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
