The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's absence period and performance in the APAR, and directed the authorities to comply with the instructions and decide on the pending representation of the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“1. By a suitable writ, order or direction, the communication dated 20.03.2013 made by DIG BSF may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 19.12.2012 may kindly be declared illegal and it may kindly be quashed and set aside.

3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the adverse entry communicated by communicated dated 27.02.2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

4. The respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and grant him promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant from the date his immediate junior i.e. respondent No.5 Prem Chand has been promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant with all consequential benefits.

5. In alternative without prejudice to above, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on 23.01.2013 against the adverse entry for the period between 01.04.2011 to 15.11.2011 communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 19.12.2012 ignoring the said adverse entry while considering his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant.”

2. The petitioner was communicated Annual Performance Assessment Report of the year 2010-2011 vide communication dated 27.02.2012, whereby he was informed that he was repatriated from Tear Smoke Unit (TSU) to his parent Unit on 21.09.2010 and he remained out with effect from 25.09.2010 to 21.02.2011, did not resume his duties at new place of posting and the same was termed as "a wrong precedence not expected from a member of the disciplined force". The relevant adverse comment made in the APAR of the petitioner is quoted as hereunder:-

“During the period under report, individual had been repatriated from TSU to his parent unit on 21.09.2010. He remained out w.e.f. 25.09.2010 to 21.02.2011 i.e. from TSU even not resumed his duties at his new place of posting, which is a wrong precedence not expected from a member of the disciplined force.”

3. The petitioner submitted his representation regarding his APAR remarks. The petitioner in his representation submitted that his wife was having serious ailment and as such, due to sufficient reason, he was not able to join within the stipulated time. The petitioner also made a reference of Writ Petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench, challenging the petitioner’s repatriation order.

4. The representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 19.12.2012 and the Competent Authority while deciding the representation of the petitioner found that the petitioner even after his repatriation from TSU on 21.09.2010 with 60 days Earned Leave and 15 days joining period, reported back to TSU on 21.02.2011 after overstaying 74 days. The Competent Authority also recorded that the Initiating Officer and Reviewing Officer, in their comments, have brought out that the petitioner’s performance during the period remained ’Poor’ and he was verbally advised to improve on numerous occasions by his superiors but the petitioner did not show any improvement.

5. The petitioner after receipt of communication dated 19.12.2012 filed another representation and requested the Authorities that the remarks in his APAR were not justified. The petitioner had also specifically mentioned that the application submitted by him for extension of leave, was not dealt with by the Authorities. The efforts made by the petitioner while serving in the Disciplined Force, did not deserve such adverse comments and the petitioner also highlighted the fact of having good service record as no prior incident was ever pointed out, reflecting adversely on the performance of the petitioner. The Authorities by order dated 20.03.2013 returned back the representation of the petitioner by holding that representation once decided, did not give