IMPORTANT POINT
Displeasure recorded in the ACR became infructuous as per the OM dated March 27, 2015, and cannot be the sole reason for denying promotion.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Issue a Writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, to the extent that Petitioner has been ignored and his juniors i.e. Respondent No. 3 to 5 have been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General;

b) Issue a Writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General for the vacancy year 2022 and include his name in the Select Panel and he may also be promoted on his own turn alongwith all consequential benefits.

c) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The primary challenge of the petitioner in this petition is to the order dated August 31, 2022 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby, the petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General (`DIG', for short) in Level-13A in the BSF and as such the juniors to the petitioner, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in this petition, were promoted.

3. It is the case of the petitioner and as contended by Dr. S.S. Hooda that the petitioner while working as Commandant was graded `very good'/`outstanding' in the last five relevant ACRs for considering his case for promotion to the post of DIG for the vacancy year 2022.

4. Dr. S. S. Hooda states that the petitioner meets the benchmark for promotion and yet, he has been denied promotion for the reasons best known. Thus, according to the Dr. Hooda, the reasons for denying promotion to the petitioner have not been communicated him. Dr. Hooda also concedes to the fact that though in the year 2016, the petitioner was communicated the displeasure of the Director General (`DG', for short) of the BSF, the displeasure being not in the nature of penalty could not have come in the way of promotion of the petitioner in view of `very good'/`outstanding' grading possessed by the petitioner in the last 5 preceding years of consideration, i.e., 2022. He would rely upon the circular dated June 28, 1989 and OM dated March 27, 2015, issued by Ministry of Home Affairs/respondent No.1 to contend that it is no more res integra that displeasure is not a punishment/penalty and the same is generally awarded in cases where there is evidence of delinquency or irregularity but it is not considered worthwhile to institute formal disciplinary proceedings. He states that circular dated June 28, 1989, also contemplates, if displeasure has been recorded in a Confidential Record (`CR') for a period prior to the normal period of consideration of CRs by the DPC, it should be ignored. He further relies upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. O.P. Nimesh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 2466/2017, decided on October 2, 2018 to contend that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said judgment to the effect that displeasure cannot act as an embargo to promotion.

5. Dr. Hooda has also shown to the Court, the show-cause notice dated November 27, 2015, issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.1, which ultimately led to the conveyance of displeasure of DG to the petitioner. He specifically relies upon the OM dated March 27, 2015, to contend once an APAR of an officer or a member of CAPF is finalized for the year or the date of finalizing such APAR is over, the displeasure or warning conveyed will become infructuous. He submits that the ACR of the petitioner of the year 2015-16 having been graded as `very good', despite consideration of the displeasure conveyed to the him, the same has now become infructuous. In other words, it is his submission that displeasure could not have been considered by the DP