Delay defeats equity and law favors the vigilant, and timely enforcement of rights is crucial in writ actions.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging primarily the ACRs of the Petitioner for the period 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 as well as order dated 30th October, 2000 issued by Respondent No. 4 and order dated 30th May, 2002 issued by Respondent No. 3 communicating the adverse entries in the Petitioner's ACR. Petitioner also challenges the order dated 18th May, 2020 passed by Respondent No. 1, order dated 04th September, 2013 passed by Respondent No. 2 and all other orders whereby the representations, appeals and memorials submitted by the Petitioner, against the adverse entries in the impugned ACRs, were rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is a member of CRPF. She states that even though the Petitioner was undergoing treatment in Delhi, yet the Respondents issued a transfer order whereby the Petitioner was posted to Srinagar. She also states that another officer was posted to Delhi from Mathura using caste connections with the IG Police, to take the Petitioner's place.

4. She states that vide impugned order dated 30th October, 2000, the Petitioner was communicated about the adverse entries in the Petitioner's impugned ACR for the period 1999-2000. She further points out that vide impugned order dated 30th May 2002, the Adverse entries in the Petitioner's ACR for the period 2001-2002, were also communicated to the Petitioner.

5. She contends that since the Petitioner was dissatisfied with the rejection of the appeal and representation against adverse remarks in the ACR, the Petitioner preferred memorials dated 09/09/2005 and 23/09/2006 to the President of India requesting for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the Petitioners ACR. She points out that both these memorials were rejected vide impugned order dated 04 th September, 2013.

6. She further states that the Petitioner's detailed representation dated 05 th December, 2017 to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide impugned order dated 18th May, 2020.

7. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Adverse entry in the ACR for the period 1999-2000 stated that though the Petitioner was a disciplined officer, yet during the year 1999, his behaviour and performance was not up to the mark and that due to his personal reasons he had refused to be deployed in Srinagar and that he should improve.

8. Further, vide Order dated 18th September, 2001 respondent communicated adverse entries in the subsequent ACR for the period 2000- 2001 stating that while the Petitioner was in SHAPE-1 medical category, he was not attending PT/parade on medical grounds but on the other hand was playing tennis.

9. The adverse entry communicated vide letter dated 30th May, 2002 stated that the Petitioner was lackadaisical in giving direction and guidance on completion of administrative works and careless in responsibility, zeal and hard work and adopted an adamant attitude. It also stated that the petitioner was aloof and was in the habit of making unnecessary direct correspondence with higher officers and lacked officer like qualities, therefore he needed to introspect and improve relations with other officers.

10. It is not understood as to how the petitioner approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes for expunction of adverse entries and for improvement of ACR, as it has been repeatedly held that National Commission for Scheduled Castes has no jurisdiction with regard to upgradation of ACR's. One of us (Manmohan, J) in Union of India v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes,2014 SCCOnLineDel 3324 has held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes is not an adjudicatory body which can issue binding directions or injunction orders and further that Commission's Reports are not an alternative to the hierarchical judicial system envisaged under the Constitution of India.

11. This court is further of the view tha