The central legal point established in the judgment is the expectation of fairness and absence of bias in ACR grading, as highlighted in the cases of Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand and Badri Nath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioner’s complaint is that his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) grading for the period 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005 was wrongly recorded by the then Reporting Officer, i.e. the third respondent Sh. Ishwar Singh Duhan, who held the rank of Commandant, and that he was actuated by malice which vitiated the “below average” ACR grading, recorded and affirmed by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer. He seeks appropriate directions for the quashing of such ACR.

2. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, an Assistant Commandant. He had joined that post in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on 25.10.1997. During the period 2004 onwards he was posted as an Assistant Commandant in the 18th Batallion of ITBP. The third respondent was his superior officer, i.e. the Comm. It is stated by the petitioner that on 31.10.2005, he wrote to the DIG, Sector Headquarters at Himachal Pradesh, bringing to light serious irregularities on account of practices of the third respondent. This apparently led to issuance of warning/advisory on 12.01.2006 when the ITBP found the complaint to be substantiated. A copy of the said letter – addressed to the third respondent/Commandant has been placed on the record. It is submitted that in these circumstances, when the third respondent initiated and wrote ACR for the period he was petitioner’s superior officer, he intentionally graded him to be “below average” to his detriment. The petitioner’s representation against the said below benchmark grading was not heeded – the Reporting and Reviewing Officers rejected his requests. It is further submitted that the petitioner complained to the Chairman, National Commission for the Scheduled Castes (hereafter “the Commission”) on 15.02.2007, stating that the adverse remarks recorded by the third respondent were motivated and, therefore, should be expunged. The petitioner in this regard relies upon the said Commission’s view on 01.09.2011 to the effect that the allegations levelled by him were true. In other words, the Commission required the ITBP to expunge the adverse remarks. It is in these circumstances that this petitioner has approached this Court for relief.

3. The respondents contend that the ACR grading was correctly recorded. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was issued with a warning on account of lapse and deficiency in his discharge of duties on 18.10.2005 and that he consequently complained against the Commandant later. The respondents further submit that the petitioner is a habitual trouble-maker and has addressed several complaints against different officers; most of which, if not all, were unsubstantiated and frivolous. Learned counsel has relied upon a document detailing each complaint levelled and the comments received from the respondents in that regard. He, therefore, urges that the present petition is devoid of merit and that the allegation of bias deserves to be rejected.

4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions. The petitioner relies upon a letter dated 12.01.2006 which in substance encapsulates the advisories and directions by the superior authorities to the third respondent, who, at the relevant time between April and October 2005 was the petitioner’s superior officer and, therefore, entitled to initiate his ACRs. The petitioner had levelled about 11 allegations in his letter dated 31.10.2005. The respondents found that 7 of those allegations were correct and that the third respondent had in fact indulged in several irregularities. The letter required correction of each of those deficiencies. The said document/advisory itself facially substantiates the petitioner’s allegation that the initiation of ACR by the third respondent was not warranted as he has every reason to be biased in the recording of the ACRs. The ITBP does not deny that the third respondent initiated the process of ACR grading on 29.03.2006.

5. The authorities on the question of bias are clea