The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment in the APAR must be free from bias, show objectivity, and comply with the relevant procedural instructions.

S. Muralidhar, J.

The Petitioner who joined the Border Security Force (BSF) as Assistant Commandant (AC) in October, 2011 has filed this petition for quashing his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2015-16 as being malafide and contrary to the applicable rules. He seeks a direction to the Respondents i.e. the Director General of Police (DGP), BSF (Respondent No.2) to read the adverse remark "good" as "very good" in the said APAR.

2. The background facts are that after the Petitioner joined the BSF as AC, he was posted to 142nd Battalion in the M & C Frontier in November, 2012. In September, 2014 he was transferred to the 144th Battalion Kalyani, South Bengal Frontier, BSF where he remained till 17th June, 2016. Thereafter he was transferred to the 93rd Battalion in Nagaland. Between 4th February, 2017 and 3rd August, 2017 he was on Army attachment with 42, Rashtriya Rifles at Phulwama in Kashmir in Counter Insurgency Operations.

3. While the Petitioner was posted at the 144th Battalion, Kalyani, South Bengal Frontier, Respondent No.3 was his Commanding Officer. While he was posted there in October/November 2015 the Petitioner noticed illegal smuggling activities taking place in the Indo Bangladesh Border. According to the Petitioner despite bringing this to the knowledge of Respondent No.3, the latter did not take interest in curbing the smuggling activity and instead removed the Petitioner from the Border posting. According to the Petitioner, he was virtually sitting in the Battalion Headquarters without any charge and his company was being led by an officer of Inspector and Sub-Inspector rank.

4. The Petitioner made four complaints against Respondent No.3 on 22nd March, 2016 the details of which have been set out in para 5 of the petition. On the basis of the above complaints, a Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) was ordered on 30th March, 2016 against Respondent No.3 R.K. Kanojia (AC) by the IG South Bengal Frontier. By another signal of the same date, the IG directed that the Petitioner should not be kept at the Battalion Headquarters but should be sent immediately to the Border for Commanding a coy. However, according to the Petitioner this order was not followed by Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner was retained at the Battalion Headquarters.

5. On the other hand, Respondent No.3 initiated two Court of Inquiries (COIs) against the Petitioner. One of the COIs was ordered against him alleging that he had gone from the Battalion Headquarters to the Border to play Holi with the Jawans without permission/intimation. This COI fell through when in cross- examination, the then Adjutant of the 144th Battalion admitted that the Petitioner had informed him about his intending to play Holi with the Border Jawans.

6. The second COI was that the Petitioner had not proceeded for Government duty pursuant to an order issued to him on 22nd March, 2016. He had been asked to proceed in the general compartment of a local train. He had sent a training clerk to get his reservation done through the Dak Runner but in the evening was told that the reservation could not be done.

7. The Petitioner states that although SCOI had been ordered against him, Respondent No.3 continued as Commanding Officer (CO) of the 144th Battalion. Therefore all the witnesses who had appeared in the SCOI were under his control.

8. On 4th and 5th April, 2016 in the SCOI, the Petitioner handed over documents to substantiate his contention that smuggling was taking place in the Indo Bangladesh Border.

9. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner on 14th March, 2016 had applied for leave for his marriage which was to take place on 17th April, 2016. On 7th April, 2016 he again moved an application to the IG requesting him to intervene and grant the Petitioner leave. On 13th April, 2016 the Petitioner was granted six days leave for his marriage and that too on undertaking that he would report after the expiry of leave for finalising of the SCOI.

10. According to the P