IMPORTANT POINT
The DPC has the discretion to consider the overall record, including penalties, when assessing a government servant's suitability for 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 thereby quashing and setting aside Rejection Order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the DG BSF; and

(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 Inspector (Min) w.e.f. 28.01.2022 i.e. the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted; and

(c) Award costs of litigation in favour of the Petitioner; and

(d) 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 in the present petition is to an order dated August 01, 2022 whereby the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner for non inclusion of his name in the promotion order to the post of Inspector (Min).

3. The submission of Dr. Hooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though the petitioner, after the GSFC proceedings were held, was awarded the sentence of forfeiting four years of service for the purpose of promotion and for the purpose of pension, but not for seniority and pursuant thereto, the petitioner having attained the eligibility to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector (Min) and his case having been considered, the same has been denied on the ground that the petitioner has been found unfit is arbitrary.

4. Dr. Hooda, has drawn our attention to page 30 of the paper-book more specifically paragraph 4 wherein the following has been stated as under:

"The candidature of the petitioner was assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 14.12.2021 for the vacancy year 2022 wherein the DPC has adjudged him as 'unfit' due to inconsistent record of service i.e. punishment awarded by GSFC under Section 20(a) of BSF Act 1968 meld with effect from 16.11 2017 to 20.11.2017."

5. Mr. Hooda has further drawn our attention to the impugned order from paragraph 4 which reads as under:

"4. As per the instructions contained in para 5.2.3 of Guidelines on DPC issued by DOP&T vide OM No.22011/5/86-Estt (D) dated 10th April 1989, before making the overall grading after considering the CRs for the relevant years the DPC should take into account whether the officer has been awarded any major or minor penalty or whether any displeasure of any superior officer or authority has been conveyed to him as reflected in the ACRS The candidature of the petitioner was assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 14.12.2021 for the vacancy year 2022 wherein the DPC has adjudged him as 'unfit' due to inconsistent record of service i.e. punishment awarded by GSFC under Section 20(a) of BSF Act 1968 meld with effect from 16.11 2017 to 20.11.2017.

5. As per the instructions contained in para 6.1.2 of DoP&T CM No. 22011/5/86-Estt. (D) dated 10th April 1989, DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them.

6. As per instructions envisaged in para 7(g) of DoP&T OM dated 28.04. 2014, in assessing the suitability on whom a penalty has been imposed, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of general service record of the officer and the fact of imposition of penalty, the officer should be considered for the promotion. The DPC, after due consideration, has authority to assess the officer as 'unfit for promotion.

7. The representation of petitioner dated 02.02.2022 seeking justice for not including his name in promotion order has been examined in the light of existing guidelines and provisions on the subject and found that while assessing his candidature by the DPC held for the vacancy yea